• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jonathan Turley 'inundated with threatening messages' after testimony opposing Trump impeachment

Anthony60 said:
Jonathan Turley '''inundated with threatening messages''' after testimony opposing Trump impeachment | Fox News

Jonathan Turley, the sole Republican witness during the House Judiciary Committee's first public impeachment hearing Wednesday, said he was "inundated with threatening messages" after his testimony, which argued that Democrats do not have enough evidence to support articles of impeachment against President Trump.

"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," Turley wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Thursday.

The tolerant, open minded Democrats showing us what they are really about. We've seen it over and over. Threats of violence, destroy lives, if they don't get their way. You will think correctly, or be dealt with. Old East Germany, anyone?
Click to expand...

People who speak out against Trump also get threatened. What is your point, that there are lunatics of all political persuasions?
 
TamleeB said:
The attacks have without a doubt been coming from all sides, and I have never said differently. THIS particular discussion is about Turley, care to join in?
Click to expand...

I've been in this conversation since before you came in here with your pretend outrage. I already posted my opinion on any "attacks", threats, or comments from anyone about Turley. You should read my posts.

But unlike the hypocrisy of Trump Fan Nation, I object to that behavior no matter if I like the person's testimony or not.
 
tres borrachos said:
I've been in this conversation since before you came in here with your pretend outrage. I already posted my opinion on any "attacks", threats, or comments from anyone about Turley. You should read my posts.

But unlike the hypocrisy of Trump Fan Nation, I object to that behavior no matter if I like the person's testimony or not.
Click to expand...

I can assure you I am not "outraged", but I am concerned. As for your comment about being in the conversation before I came in, I have no doubt that is true. I have a life outside of the forum and its been a very busy week for me. Do you believe Turley perjured himself when he said he did not vote for Trump and is not a Trump supporter?
 
nota bene said:
No, this isn't "fake news"; it's real news.

And no, let's stick with the thread topic. Turley says that since his testimony, he's received threats. Do you not believe him?
Click to expand...

It's time to blame Turley, he was asking for it. Or, it's not true. Must have recordings/photos/video, or it never happened. Probably someone on the right, framing the left.

Except this is entirely consistent with the left storming scheduled speeches by Republicans, down to disrupting them while having dinner at a restaurant.

They do not want to allow others to speak, if they don't agree with them. That's the bottom line. Silencing opposing views, especially those supporting freedom and liberty, is not any basis for a free society. But it is the basis for the society that the left would impose on us.
 
Cardinal said:
What was the nature of these threats, who made them, and how many such threats qualified for the use of “inundated?”
Click to expand...

Turley is usually pretty precise with his wording, so I doubt he is talking about a handful of threats.
 
Anthony60 said:
Jonathan Turley '''inundated with threatening messages''' after testimony opposing Trump impeachment | Fox News

Jonathan Turley, the sole Republican witness during the House Judiciary Committee's first public impeachment hearing Wednesday, said he was "inundated with threatening messages" after his testimony, which argued that Democrats do not have enough evidence to support articles of impeachment against President Trump.

"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," Turley wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Thursday.

The tolerant, open minded Democrats showing us what they are really about. We've seen it over and over. Threats of violence, destroy lives, if they don't get their way. You will think correctly, or be dealt with. Old East Germany, anyone?
Click to expand...

East germany? Hell no, the president said he'll pay the legal bills.
 
tres borrachos said:
I missed the threats. It looks like people are saying he should be fired by GWU. I completely disagree with them and think this sort of thing is obnoxious. But I don't see the threats.

I do know the whistleblower's legal team have received death threats, and even the FBI got involved.

I don't think this behavior is acceptable but sadly this is the new America apparently.

Subban still sucks.
Click to expand...

You know, there I was thinking you were a wonderful person, Rangers fan and all. Then, you had to throw in that last line. I want to see Subban crush the whistleblower into the boards, even if it means a five minute major.
 
Anthony60 said:
The tolerant, open minded Democrats showing us what they are really about. We've seen it over and over. Threats of violence, destroy lives, if they don't get their way. You will think correctly, or be dealt with. Old East Germany, anyone?
Click to expand...
Trump AS POTUS, threatened and attacked a U.S. ambassador, including while she was testifying against his actions.

And here you are raging against random people who are asking his university to fire him?

That's not even a double standard...your tolerance of POTUS doing far worse...on a regular basis, hurts the nation. People asking for Turley to be fired, because he was pissing on the nation by subtlety engaging in deception as he defended Trump, doesn't even register.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
He can say whatever he wants in regards to how he voted because its private and no one will ever know. Thus there was zero risk in claiming he did not vote for him. Usually someone does not shill for an utterly despicable human being unless they voted for them.

Did he get threats? Probably. It is a country of 320 million people, there are some nuts out there. Thank God he didn't piss off the far right White Nationalists, as they are responsible for the vast majority of politically motivated murders and domestic terrorism - and those White Nationalists love Trump.
Click to expand...

Turley wasn’t “shilling” for Trump. In no way did he try to minimize the charges or make any claims that Trump was innocent. His only concern was the constitutional process of impeachment and how the House was executing it so far.
 
Turley is the real deal in the law department. I've been a fan of his for years.

I have not been watching the proceedings, but caught Turley testifying on the lunch counter TV. I was amazed he was even invited. The Dems were not expecting a fair and balanced person to testify.
 
Anthony60 said:
Turley is usually pretty precise with his wording, so I doubt he is talking about a handful of threats.
Click to expand...

You say he’s precise, but he hasn’t provided anything that would qualify as “precise.”
 
Cardinal said:
You say he’s precise, but he hasn’t provided anything that would qualify as “precise.”
Click to expand...

He provided as much precision as the other three witnesses.
 
Moon said:
Turley wasn’t “shilling” for Trump. In no way did he try to minimize the charges or make any claims that Trump was innocent. His only concern was the constitutional process of impeachment and how the House was executing it so far.
Click to expand...

Basically, his argument that the House needed to call the witnesses that the White House refuses to let testify. If one could have a more intellectually dishonest argument, I am not sure what it would be.
 
TamleeB said:
He provided as much precision as the other three witnesses.
Click to expand...

Since Turley seems unable to qualify or quantify these supposed “threats,” I’m going to assume that his claims are false.
 
Anthony60 said:
Jonathan Turley '''inundated with threatening messages''' after testimony opposing Trump impeachment | Fox News

Jonathan Turley, the sole Republican witness during the House Judiciary Committee's first public impeachment hearing Wednesday, said he was "inundated with threatening messages" after his testimony, which argued that Democrats do not have enough evidence to support articles of impeachment against President Trump.

"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," Turley wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Thursday.

The tolerant, open minded Democrats showing us what they are really about. We've seen it over and over. Threats of violence, destroy lives, if they don't get their way. You will think correctly, or be dealt with. Old East Germany, anyone?
Click to expand...

Hopefully at the ballot box.
 
nota bene said:
Evidence vs no evidence means nothing to you apparently.
Click to expand...

Either you have been in a coma the last few months and are completely unaware of the transcript the White House released, all the testimony, including the admissions by the White House acting Chief of Staff, or you are being intellectually dishonest.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Either you have been in a coma the last few months and are completely unaware of the transcript the White House released, all the testimony, including the admissions by the White House acting Chief of Staff, or you are being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
I find it is usually the last one with most Trump defenders.
 
Cardinal said:
Since Turley seems unable to qualify or quantify these supposed “threats,” I’m going to assume that his claims are false.
Click to expand...

You are free to assume whatever you wish. My guess is, you had your mind made up about Turley before he utter one single word.
 
TamleeB said:
You are free to assume whatever you wish. My guess is, you had your mind made up about Turley before he utter one single word.
Click to expand...

You are clearly projecting since you’ve accepted Turley’s claims despite being given zero specifics. Why?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes of course I do. His testimony as to whether Trump should be impeached could not have been more different than his testimony about whether Clinton should have been impeached. One only has to look at his testimony 20 years ago and compare it to this week, to see he is not an honest man.
Click to expand...


Only if you're so closed minded you only listen to knothead partisans hacks who twist and distort what he said.


While obviously presented in a false context, the quotation of my Clinton testimony only highlights the glaring contrast of those who opposed the Clinton impeachment but now insist the case is made to impeach Trump. I have maintained that they both could be removed, one for a crime and one for a noncrime. The difference is that the Clinton crime was accepted by Democrats. Indeed, a judge reaffirmed that Clinton committed perjury, a crime for which thousands of other citizens have been jailed. Yet the calls for showing that “no one is above the law” went silent with Clinton.

As I stated Wednesday, I believe the Clinton case is relevant today and my position remains the same. I do not believe a crime has been proven over the Ukraine controversy, though I said such crimes might be proven with a more thorough investigation. Instead, Democrats have argued that they do not actually have to prove the elements of crimes such as bribery and extortion to use those in drafting articles of impeachment. In the Clinton impeachment, the crime was clearly established and widely recognized.
Click to expand...

Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment | TheHill
 
SkyFox76 said:
Unless he's got recordings, names and faces there's nothing to say the people doing it are from the left. Who knows? They could be coming from some 400 lb guy sitting in his tighty whities, a kfc chicken leg in one hand and a phone in the other. Stuff dreams are made of.
Click to expand...

*Snort* You don't think Turley has names, for example, of intimidators?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Basically, his argument that the House needed to call the witnesses that the White House refuses to let testify. If one could have a more intellectually dishonest argument, I am not sure what it would be.
Click to expand...

His argument is that the House hasn’t completed the investigative process. When one branch of government is at odds with another, the next step is to get the judicial branch to resolve the conflict.
 
truthatallcost said:
Interesting, yet no Trump supporters have threatened the Dems 3 witnesses from yesterday, even though one of them insulted Trump's 11 year old son. The deplorable behavior continues to exist primarily within the group of people who want to overturn our elections if they don't like the results. They're the real meddlers.
Click to expand...

How do you know that none have? Could be that those witnesses just aren't snowflakes and don't give a damn about calls for their job, since those won't go anywhere no matter who makes them (the same is true for Turley, who presumably has tenure).
 
Thoreau72 said:
Turley is the real deal in the law department. I've been a fan of his for years.

I have not been watching the proceedings, but caught Turley testifying on the lunch counter TV. I was amazed he was even invited. The Dems were not expecting a fair and balanced person to testify.
Click to expand...

About as fair and balanced a testimony as can be received from the dems. Three rabid Trump haters and one Trump, er, impeachment apologist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom