Law professor Jonathan Turley, no fan of the January 6 invasion of Congress, published an op-ed in The Hill yesterday warning Democrats of the danger of trying Impeachment 2.0 over Trump's remarks on Wednesday.
"With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends."
You may or may not agree with Turley's view that Trump's address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. You might want to read his argument, linked above. (In support of this view, another liberal lawyer, Ann Althouse, has gone over the entire speech in detail and finds little that could be considered incitement to violence.) But my question is on a slightly different matter:
What makes Professor Turley think that Democrats have any objection to destroying free speech? After the putsches of the last few days to shut down any speech they disagree with, this seems wilfully naive.
He goes on to predict: "In this new system, guilt is not doubted and innocence is not deliberated. This would do to the Constitution what the violent rioters did to the Capitol and leave it in tatters."
Yes. They've been shredding the Constitution for some time. If Impeachment 2.0 is the coup de grace, why wouldn't they be all for it?
No comments:
Post a Comment