George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley, a self-described liberal, has now become “persona non grata” among radical leftists who are now demanding that the acclaimed Constitutional scholar be fired.
The congenial 58-year old legal scholar, is frequently called on by congressional committees to testify regarding constitutional and statutory issues, was viciously vilified by rabid leftists after his testimony on Wednesday — for presenting an opposing view regarding the sobering issue of impeachment.
In an article just penned by the brilliant law professor published for The Hill, he describes what has transpired since his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, which no doubt will shock even the most hardened individual.
“My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee,” Turley lamented. “Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record.”
It’s noteworthy to point out before we hear from Professor Turley in his own words within his op-ed article titled “Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment,” that the respected scholar did not vote for President Trump and is in no way a staunch defender of the President.
However, the firestorm created by rabid leftists moments after the hearing was concluded, vilifying and physically threatening the wellbeing of Turley and his family, compiles him to speak out.
“The most dangerous place for an academic is often between the House and the impeachment of an American president. I knew that going into the first hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment of Donald Trump. After all, Alexander Hamilton said that impeachment would often occur in an environment of “agitated passions.” Yet I remained a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides.”
“In my testimony Wednesday, I lamented that, as in the impeachment of President Clinton from 1998 to 1999, there is an intense “rancor and rage” and “stifling intolerance” that blinds people to opposing views.”
By Wednesday evening the mainstream media especially those talking heads on CNN had all but ignored what Professor Turley actually said regarding impeachment
CNN contributor Jeffrey Toobin unleashed a verbal assault, void of actual substance, “What I thought was interesting about Professor Turley’s testimony was his confidence that there was not enough evidence yet,” Toobin pointed out, “that the Democrats are rushing this process, that they should get more evidence if they want to do something as profound as impeaching a president.”
Adding, “from his testimony was any acknowledgment at all that the Democrats have tried to get a lot of this evidence, that they have subpoenaed witnesses, that they have sought documents, they have sought emails, and they have not been denied piecemeal… they have been told, you can have nothing.”
“The idea that you can stonewall about every single piece of evidence and then have it held against you as Congress, that you haven’t gotten enough evidence, is really a pretty extraordinary position,” Toobin concluded.
Toobin, of course, cherry-picks certain talking-points advanced by Democrats, thinly laying out what he considers (however will not say), constitutes obstruction of justice, by the President’s refusal to assist in the impeachment witch hunt.
However Professor Turley had said throughout the hearings, that refusal to acknowledge a subpoena by one co-equal branch of government towards another co-equal branch of government is a dispute (not obstruction of justice), that could’ve easily been remedied by going to the third co-equal branch of government, the court.
However Democrats refuse to go to the courts, for fear of being rejected, and because they’ve decided to “fast-track” the impeachment process, to comport with their political calendar, hoping to put this fiasco quickly behind them.