Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, U.S.
In response to the impeachment motion initiated by Democrats, Jonathan Turley, an attorney who was involved in the 2019 impeachment hearings, said President Trump did not have inflammatory language in his speech to his supporters before the incident that rocked Congress. He warned that continuing to push the impeachment agenda would cause long-term damage to the U.S. Constitution.
Turley is a liberal legal scholar and professor at George Washington University Law School (GWULS). He has participated in numerous impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives and impeachment trials in the Senate, including the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton and the 2019 impeachment investigation of President Trump.
On Saturday (Jan. 9), he published an opinion piece in The Hill stating that a new impeachment that starts quickly would undermine the U.S. Constitution.
According to the article, the Democrats seek to launch a second impeachment against Trump for sedition, which would completely destroy not only the constitutional standard for impeachment, but also freedom of speech in the U.S. Such a move, taken just days before the end of Trump’s term, is hasty and insane.
He pointed out that the Democrats want to remove Trump based on the speech he gave to supporters before he stormed Congress, but that Trump’s speech does not meet the definition of “incitement” under the criminal code and would be considered a protected speech by the Supreme Court.
Turley, who is not a Trump supporter, acknowledged that while Trump’s speech was widely and “justifiably” condemned, it is true that he never called for violence or riots. Trump urged supporters to ask members of Congress to oppose certifying the Electoral College vote results, but he told the crowd to “let your voices be heard in a peaceful and patriotic way.
Turley also noted that Democrats have challenged the electoral vote in the past on the basis of the law, and that Trump called on the crowd to “walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,” a march that is a common form of protest in the United States. Trump did not call for illegal action, he only called for people to protest in front of Congress.
The article further notes that, in addition, violence was not imminent, as the vast majority of the thousands of protesters were not violent prior to the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests over the past four years, the crimes were committed by only a small group of instigators. The Capitol Police were aware of the march, but declined help from the National Guard because they thought violence was unlikely.
Turley argued that Trump’s statements are covered by the First Amendment and therefore, for Congress to now seek to impeach him for those statements would set a precedent that any president can be impeached for using reckless language that triggers accusations of violence by others.
Turley commented that the basis advocated by Democrats for use in impeachment is more extreme than an infamous 1919 U.S. Supreme Court decision that would ultimately cause long-term damage to the U.S. Constitution.
Recent Comments