Appearing on Friday’s CBS This Morning, legal analyst and constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley completely shattered the hopes of Democrats and the liberal media that President Trump would be successfully impeached and removed from office. He trashed the proceedings for presenting “the thinnest evidentiary record” and declared the effort was “designed to fail.”

After fellow CBS News legal analyst and anti-Trump Bulwark writer Kim Wehle assured the morning show anchors that Democrats “absolutely” made the case for impeachment, co-host Gayle King turned to Turley and wondered: “Jonathan, do you feel the same?” Turley threw a wet blanket on the discussion: “I’m afraid I don’t.”

Replying to King and fellow co-host Anthony Mason skeptically asking, “why don’t they have a case?,” Turley dismantled the impeachment crusade point by point:

The fact is I think that this is the – well certainly the shortest investigation, it’s certainly the thinnest evidentiary record, and it’s the narrowest impeachment ever to go to the Senate, if they were to go on this record....did they prove something was contemptible or impeachable? Contemptible is not synonymous with impeachable. The President does set policy. They have three conversations, two of them directly, one with Senator Johnson, one with Ambassador Sondland, where Trump denies a quid pro quo....so you have a conflicted record. And the question is what do you need to remove a sitting president?

Mason wondered why Democrats didn’t compel former National Security Advisor John Bolton to testify. Turley confessed he was curious about the same thing as he slammed the rushed and incomplete process pushed by Democrats:

Whether this is intentional or not, it seems designed to fail in the Senate. I don’t think you could prove a removable offense of a president on this record even if the Democrats were in control. This thing is too narrow, it is – it doesn’t have a broad foundation, and it’s an undeveloped record. There are a lot of core witnesses that were not called. And the question is why? They said, “We want a vote by December. We want to vote before Santa.” Why? Why – why would you – why would you be pushing this instead of calling these critical witnesses?

During special live coverage on Wednesday, Turley shot down an argument from Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell that Democrats could charge Trump with “obstruction of justice” because those witnesses did not appear.

Moments later, even King admitted: “I think people’s eyes start to glaze over. ‘Ukraine, where is it?,’ some people would say. ‘What is this? Is it bribery, is it collusion? What is it?’” She then asked Wehle, “What do you think is really at stake here, Kim?” Wehle warned: “What’s at stake here is separation of powers. We don’t have a single person or branch in charge. We’re not a monarchy.”

Turley went on to point out that Republicans would be in control of the Senate trial if the House were to approve articles of impeachment and that things would go very differently: “And so the question is, what is this going to look like in the Senate? And I got to tell you, I think this could be the trial that Trump wants. And they will – the first witness they call may be Hunter Biden.”

Wehle laughably pleaded: “Well, let’s hope it’s as civil as it was in the House, because so far the process has been, I think, very measured and thoughtful and professional, which is good.” Mason couldn’t help but get in a jab at the GOP: “Except for the Republicans storming the basement one day.” Wehle replied: “Yes, that was – that was a little footnote there.”

“Measured,” “thoughtful,” and “professional”?! Those are not the words many people would use to describe the partisan hearings that Democrats just held.

Here is a full transcript of the November 22 discussion: