Some in the liberal media were doing everything they could to praise House impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s performance.

In fact, the praise was so effusive, you knew it was spin because they so overdid it.

“Thank God I was alive to hear Adam Schiff speak these past few days,” fake “conservative” WaPo opinion writer Jen Rubin tweeted.

“This is the most brilliant legal presentation I have heard. None comes close. The tone, the facts, the anticipated defenses. I am in awe,” she said in another tweet.

She apparently doesn’t get out much.

But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley brought some much needed sanity to the evaluation of Schiff and the Democrats’ performance as well as that of the Trump lawyers.

During an interview with CBS, Turley said that House impeachment manager made a “huge blunder” by insulting the “jury.” “One of the things you teach law students is that when you make arguments to juries, make sure you don’t insult the jury,” Turley explained. “That is, you don’t want to make statements that make them feel stupid or ascribe any bad motivations to them.”

Prof. Turley: Nadler made a “major blunder” by insulting senatorshttps://t.co/A82urQTV6P pic.twitter.com/ApcCOTvbDL

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 23, 2020

As we reported, Nadler said that if the senators didn’t approve of the witnesses the Democrats want they would be involved in a “cover-up.”

“The question is if the Senate will be complicit in the president’s crimes by covering them up,” Nadler said. “Any senator who votes against any relevant testimony shows that he and she are part of the cover-up. What other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness to testify here?”

That ticked off many of the Republicans including votes he would need for witnesses, like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Murkowski said she was offended. According to the Washington Examiner, Collins said she was “stunned” by it and that had it been a normal debate, it would have been stricken for impugning a senator. She also finked Nadler out to Chief Justice Roberts who admonished both sides to “remember where they were.

Of course, then Schiff did basically the same thing, offending them again in his closing, relating a story that wasn’t true about Trump threatening them with their “heads on a pike” if they didn’t vote his way. All the GOP senators said that was false and many rebuked Schiff for it, saying they were “incensed.”

But Trump’s team’s “did very well.” “The tenor was right and the content was highly substantive,” Turley said.

The House took a lot of hits below the waterline today. These were powerful points that gave ample foundation for senators to support acquittal without agreeing with the Dershowitz theory or the suggestion that everything was "perfect." I liked the low key, fact-based argument.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 25, 2020

The White House did a particularly good job explaining its position on refusing discovery and also the unfair process. Moreover, it was a brilliant decision to limit the opening to a few hours. The House subjected the Senate to mind-numbing repetition for 22 hours.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 25, 2020

By giving up much of the first day, the White House gave a concise opening, relieved the jury, and pushed the main argument to Monday with a larger television audience. It was a sophisticated and effective strategy that paid off. A very strong start to their case .

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 25, 2020

HT: Twitchy