This is what happens when you disagree with the rabid left!

Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment
(by Jonathan Turley)

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. My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee. 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.

 

Some of the most heated attacks came from Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Representative Eric Swalwell of California attacked me for defending my client, Judge Thomas Porteous, in the last impeachment trial and noted that I lost that case. Swalwell pointed out that I said Porteous had not been charged with a crime for any conduct, which is an obviously material point for any impeachment defense.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank expanded on this theme of attacking my past argument. Despite 52 pages of my detailed testimony, more than twice the length of all the other witnesses combined, on the cases and history of impeachment, he described it as being “primarily emotional and political.”

Factually speaking, it's impossible to objectively look at the four witnesses and believe (for any sane reason) that Turley was the one being biased, political, and emotional. In fact, Turley was the only witness who's feelings towards Trump was completely different from his feelings about impeachment. The other three had their emotional dislike of Trump so intertwined with their reasoning for impeachment that you could  hardly tell where one feeling ended and the other started.

Not liking the President is not a valid reason for impeachment.

The fact that Turley received threats and calls for his removal from liberal social circles (as well as his status as a Law Professor) because he made a valid legal argument against impeachment tells us all that his opinion (and his testimony) hit home for liberals. I figure most of these liberals likely spent most of the time with their hands over their ears, chanting "lalalalala" because they didn't want to hear what he was saying. But his argument WAS the only argument that used precedent, that compared and contrasted this action to previous impeachments, and referenced a variety of legal rulings on the subject of bribery and abuse of power.

I often times try to "see" the situation from the opposing point of view. Often times I am able to do so, but in this case I find it difficult. Other than just a deep seeded belief that any and all allegations made against Trump must be true (unless proven false beyond all shadow of any doubt) there is very little reason to believe that these hearings could have swayed anyone to believe Trump is guilty.  The "only" reasoning that seems to "fit" with all of this is the statement made by one of the House Democrats when he suggested that "hearsay evidence" is better than "first hand evidence".

It's like a whole bunch of people who all share a particular opinion of what happened and why it all happened, and apparently find validation and comfort in the fact that others are willing to cling to these beliefs (in spite of no actual evidence to support it). They also simply believe that Trump must be held (likely because of their tremendous dislike of the man) to a different standard from any other politicians and any other Presidents. Clearly more obvious form of "bribery" was admitted by Joe Biden regarding the same country, and yet Democrats continue to justify that with the same sort of unproven belief that it was for virtuous reasons.

If it wasn't for their own assumptions, they would have no proof at all.

At the end of the day, Democrats are bound and determined to cut of their nose to spite their face. They are basically ruining the entire concept of impeachment, opening up every future President to outrageous partisan impeachment attacks, and declaring it perfectly acceptable to move forward on impeachment without any bi-partisan support, without any evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing, and without any actual attempt to prove the alleged behavior that likely doesn't rise to a level required even if it was true.

And they have the audacity to accuse someone like Turley of being emotional and political?