By David Kamioner | December 4, 2019

When GOP Counsel Paul Taylor at the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing today asked Jonathan Turley (shown above, far right), a law professor from George Washington University, what he thought the motivation for impeachment was, Turley responded, in part, “More rage than reason.”

Of all the explanations of Democrat and leftist reasoning for the impeachment effort against President Donald Trump, this must stand as the best and most cogent.

Counsel Taylor further pointed out that 97 percent of lawyers donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016; that Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly hailed from the bi-coastal districts carried by Clinton; and that the impeachment hearings against Richard Nixon culminated with significant GOP committee member support for impeachment.

This current process against Trump, he noted, has been driven only by one political party: the Democrats and their allies in the legal and media classes.

Taylor concluded that for these reasons, the process was less about law and more about political revenge.

Related: Jonathan Turley Stars in Witness Opening Statements at Judiciary Committee Hearings

Turley agreed with his general points and made the further point that there are no high crimes or misdemeanors — evidence of such which is needed for impeachment — found here.

“Not in this record,” he commented about the president’s actions.

At that point, GOP members took over their portion of the questioning of the four law professors called before the committee today.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), a veteran of four impeachments of various officials, asked Turley whether then-Vice President Biden’s public bragging of holding up aid to Ukraine unless a prosecutor was fired within six hours — a prosecutor that was investigating a firm that employed Biden’s son — would meet the low standard for Democrat impeachment?

Turley agreed it would.

Related: Turley to House Judiciary Dems: ‘You’re Doing Exactly What You’re Accusing the President of Doing’

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) quoted House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) during the 1998 Bill Clinton impeachment process, saying there “must be an overwhelming consensus” for impeachment — and if not, impeachment would “lack legitimacy.”

But apparently Nadler only feels that way when Dems are being impeached.

Nadler was silent in answering Chabot’s inference of hypocrisy.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) bemoaned that 16 Dems had backed impeachment on various grounds long before these hearings.

How, then, could they fairly make up their minds, he asked, when they were so previously biased for impeachment?

He answered his own question: Of course they couldn’t.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) had a field day by invoking the actions of past presidents — and asking Turley if they would have been impeached under the Democrat partisan standard for impeachment.

Related: Judiciary Hearings Kick Off on Wednesday

Would President Franklin Roosevelt have been impeached for using the IRS against political enemies?

Would President John Kennedy have been impeached for deporting one of his mistresses?

Would President Lyndon Johnson have been impeached for planting a CIA spy in a rival’s staff and bugging that rival’s campaign plane?

Would President Abraham Lincoln have been impeached for arresting members of the Maryland legislature so they could not vote for secession?

Turley agreed that under today’s Democrat standards, all would fall under the definition.

But none of them were impeached.

That is because in those days, this analyst notes, calmer heads and adult judgment prevailed over rank partisan hypocrisy.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Rebel Without a Party? This House Democrat Opposes Trump’s Impeachment
This American Mom Is Trapped in Haiti and Needs Your Help 
Is Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia Going to Buck Trump by Picking His Own Choice for Senate Seat?

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Political Insider.