Yeah on that WB nobody should be threatened like that. It happens on both sides but it doesn't make it okay. However I would criticize Turley for having very different views when it was a democrat being impeached. Than he argued that a President didn't even need to commit a crime to warrant impeachment.
I'm glad we can agree that both sides should not unleash or threaten violence just because someone (like Turley) expresses an opinion we don't like.
But all too often, Democrat leaders
themselves (Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Joseph Biden... ) are the ones who are leading the way and calling for violence and intimidation against their Republkican opposition by grassroots Democrats.
There has been criticism of Jonathan Turley for haaving different views of the Bill Clinton impeachment, yes, as contrasted with the Democratpush to impeach Trump:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473227-the-shifting-impeachment-positions-of-jonathan-turleyBut while Turley has said (in 1998) that a president doesn't have to commit actual crimes to warrant impeachment, I don't see that as being contradicted or flip-flopped in his views in the Trump case. I don't see that Turley said that Trump should not be impeached for things that don't amount to actual crimes. What Turley was openly critical of is:
1) the Democrat rush to judgement, as opposed to gradually building a case, as was done in the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings,
and
2) That the process against Trump is clearly partisan, and that Democrats have never tried to build a bipartisan impeachment process, never tried to establish rules that are undisputedly fair to both sides,
as was the standard in the previous Nixon and Clinton impeachments. The above editorial by prosecutor James D. Zirin bypasses the obvious to make his partisan point, that Trump is not cooperating because for Trump and his lawyers to cooperate at this stage would be to endorse a one-sided process that is obscenely unfair. If process rules were the same unanimously fair and bipartisan process as under the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, I'm sure Trump would fully cooperate. Until that fair process is established, Trump's non-cooperation is the only leverage he has to change the current rules to something truly fair.
Looking at Jonathan Turley's opinions on a wide range of issues in
his Wikipedia listing, it seems to me that he is a majority of the time on the side of liberal Democrats, and in less partisan terms, against leaders of either party who overstep and intrude on Constitutional rights and freedoms.
Here's Turley's own opinion defending his views, in contrast to Zinn's linked views above.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/47...ump-impeachmentTurley explains, against the above allegations by Zirin and other pundits, that Turley in his views is very consistent in the standard he presents, in both the Clinton and Trump cases. I was going to click and drag quote them, but that is what the link is for, to read in the full context of Turley's own argument.
Both sides [editorials by both Zirin and Turley] published in The Hill, which is how every news publication should be. As opposed to CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Politico and others, who only inadvertantly publish anything critical of or politically disadvantageous to the Democrats, and are deeply invested in advancing the Democrat political side. The unity of the liberal message convinces me that all these publications conference call daily with Democrat political leaders and/or Media Matters, because the talking points and buzz words across every libera-media channel and print source are so glaringly the same as those of the Democrat Washington leadership.
It's Orwellian.
