Politics

Jonathan Turley Calls For Civility In Impeachment Hearing — Gets Threats Instead

Virginia Kruta Associate Editor
Font Size:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley received threats at both his home and office following his testimony Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment.

In a Thursday tweet, Turley lamented the fact that his own calls for civil and rational discourse had been tossed aside, giving way to “agitated passions.”

“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 GW,” Turley tweeted along with an opinion piece published by The Hill in defense of his testimony.

Making it clear in the first moments of his testimony that he was not a fan of President Donald Trump, Turley cited historical impeachment attempts in an effort to explain why he believed the House Democrats had not yet met the burden of proof necessary to warrant impeachment.

Turley also noted several times that he was troubled by the president’s conduct and believed that further investigation might lead to a reasonable case for impeachment — but his unwillingness to pull the trigger in the hearing apparently was enough to provoke attacks against him. (RELATED: GOP’s Impeachment Witness Attacks ‘Bribery’ And ‘Obstruction’ Narratives, Accuses Democrats Of Abusing Power)

The GWU professor offered further defense of his position in a blog post on his own site, arguing that the intent of his testimony had not been to shut down the impeachment process, but to encourage a deeper and more thorough investigation prior to moving forward.

“In the wake of yesterday’s hearing, my office and home have been inundated with threats from people irate over the fact that I would question the sufficiency of this record for impeachment,” Turley began, concluding that piece by noting that “these attacks are more evidence of the ‘passions’ that have out-stripped the proof in this controversy.”