Showing posts with label Jonathan Turley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jonathan Turley. Show all posts

Sunday, December 31, 2023

Paraprosdokianism in the news: Colorado and Maine move to destroy democracy in order to save it

Do we really want another pre-civil war election, where one candidate doesn't appear, for whatever reasons, on the ballots of ten Democrat states, as Lincoln did not and became president despite 60% of the country wanting anybody but Lincoln?

Radicalism is in the air.

Please wear a mask.

 



 

 

 

 

Destroying democracy to save it: Maine shows the danger of zealots in our legal system:

Maine’s Shenna Bellows issued a “decision” that declared Trump an “insurrectionist” and ineligible to be president. She joined an ignoble list of Democratic officials in states such as Colorado who claim to safeguard democracy by denying its exercise to millions of Americans. ...

One columnist wrote that “Democrats may have to act radically to deny Donald Trump the 2024 Republican nomination. We cannot rely on Republicans to do it…Trump must be defeated. No matter what it takes.”

Sunday, October 15, 2023

Joe Biden advisor Annie Tomasini inventoried Joe Biden's classified documents 20 months before Joe Biden said he discovered them, oops

 Jonathan Turley here.

Rep. James Comer, here, as of August 8th has a letter from a Penn Biden Center employee indicating:

  • March 18, 2021 Annie Tomasini (Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the President and Director of Oval Office Operations) went to Penn Biden Center to take inventory of President Biden’s documents and materials.

Monday, August 21, 2023

Jonathan Turley says the worst thing that can be said of Trump on January 6th is that he might have felt some satisfaction over a few hours of chaos in the Congress

 Which is not a crime.

Here:

If Trump supported a rebellion or insurrection, what was the plan? Not only did Smith not charge him with any such crime, but there was little evidence that even the most radical defendants charged were planning to overthrow the nation’s government or were part of a broader conspiracy. There were no troops standing by, no plan for a post-democratic takeover by Trump or his alleged minions. At worst, according to witnesses against Trump, there was a despondent and defiant president who may have gotten satisfaction from the chaos in Congress.

Tuesday, June 13, 2023

Wednesday, January 18, 2023

FBI, completely in the tank for Joe Biden, declined invitation to search Biden's home and let Joe's lawyers without security clearances conduct the search

 Abolish the FBI. Impeach Biden.

Jonathan Turley, here:

". . . there was no 302, which is the type of document that many of us use on criminal defense work. It is essentially the record created in criminal cases by FBI agents. So this was treated as a very informal interview."

"The fact is that by November 2nd, they had found highly classified documents," Turley said. "They did not know how many more existed. They did know that these documents likely had been transferred more than once, and that they had been out there for probably six years. So in the midst of all of that, according to the 'Wall Street Journal,' they were offered the opportunity to search the Biden residence. Now, why on Earth would the FBI not take that opportunity? I mean, what is the possible reason for saying, no, we're really not inclined to do that. You're embarrassing us. You, you go ahead and do it. It's bizarre. And so not only did they allow uncleared lawyers to look for highly classified information, but those lawyers then continue to find them over 60 days and the FBI doesn't seem to have done a thing."

 


Thursday, February 6, 2020

Jonathan Turley is rightly upset by Nancy Pelosi's demolishing of decades of tradition

But she's a radical, a revolutionary, an enemy of America. Should we expect less?

The country hangs by a thread.

[S]he should resign as the speaker of the House of Representatives. 



Tuesday, August 21, 2018

If you haven't been listening to Mark Levin tonight, you are probably panicking about the Michael Cohen plea for no reason

Mark Levin says the myriad talking heads out there, especially Jonathan Turley, have the Cohen plea all wrong. In fact, he says Cohen stupidly pleaded guilty to things which aren't crimes. The special prosecutor wants it to appear that there are campaign crimes involving Trump, but there are not. And because this is a plea, this isn't a finding of a court. So there is no effect, setting a new precedent. Cohen's plea comes to avoid more serious charges.

Levin even had the former head of the Federal Election Commission on to explain how there was no violation involved.

Good stuff.

Watch for the synopsis later, here.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Indictment of 13 Russians says interference efforts began in 2014, long before Trump was a candidate

Jonathan Turley, here:

Now, the special counsel and the deputy attorney general are saying that there is no evidence of knowing interaction of campaign staff with Russians interfering with the election. The paucity of such evidence follows a year of intensive investigation and the much heralded plea bargains with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and the expected plea with former campaign official Rick Gates. There is still no evidence of anyone “wittingly” or knowingly colluding with these Russians. Moreover, the indictment says that the Russian efforts began in 2014, long before the candidacy of Trump.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Jonathan Turley: Trump's order ending healthcare subsidies overturns Obama's original unconstitutional order

Read about it and watch here.

Real winning, but how vulnerable the constitution has been to the executive.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Liberal Jonathan Turley says Comey was describing his own conduct in strikingly unethical terms


Comey asked why Trump would ask everyone to leave the Oval Office to speak with Comey unless he was doing something improper. Yet, Trump could ask why Comey would use a third party to leak these memos if they were his property and there was nothing improper in their public release.

In fact, there was a great deal wrong with their release, and Comey likely knew it. These were documents prepared on an FBI computer addressing a highly sensitive investigation on facts that he considered material to that investigation. Indeed, he conveyed that information confidentially to his top aides and later said that he wanted the information to be given to the special counsel because it was important to the investigation.


Thursday, June 8, 2017

Liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley is "deeply troubled" by self-serving careerist James Comey's leak


The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The New York Times has nothing on Trump, who only expressed a hope, that's all, IF the memo is legit

Meanwhile the dishonest media keep reporting such things as "Trump asked Comey to cut short the Flynn investigation" when Trump did nothing of the kind. 

Here, claiming to quote Trump from Comey's memo:

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” 

That's why Turley says there's no evidence in the memo. Trump asks for nothing, threatens nothing, and only expresses a hope.

And even if it were "evidence", it would only be "he said" vs. "he said", a form of hearsay and inadmissible.

Jonathan Turley: The Comey memo is not proof of an impeachable offense


[W]e need to move beyond the hyperventilated pronouncements of criminal conduct or impeachable offenses based on this memo. This conversation in the Oval Office is a valid matter of concern and worthy of further investigation. It is not proof of an impeachable offense any more than it is proof of a crime.

Friday, March 17, 2017

Five 9th Circuit judges say fellow 3-judge panel usurped Trump's constitutional presidential rights


Aside from the procedural defects of the process, the five panel jurists then noted the deep legal problems with the panel’s order: its a-historicity, it’s [sic] abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights. Mirroring much of the Boston judge’s decision, the five judges then detail and outline what other critics, skeptics and commentators have noted of the prior panel decision, including critical commentary from liberal law professors and scribes Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Jeffrey Toobin. The original 3-judge panel “neglected or overlooked critical cases by the Supreme Court and by our making clear that when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, we must defer to the judgment of the political branches.” Of particular note, the five panel judges note how the 3-judge panel decision in “compounding its omission” of Supreme Court decisions and relevant sister Circuit precedents, also “missed all of our own cases” on the subject. The 5 judges conclude the panel engaged in a “clear misstatement of law” so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Turley likes Gorsuch

I think that says more about Turley than it does about Gorsuch.

Story here.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017