turley esq

---

trying to pass for Dem = fig leaf ACTUALLY LIBTARD?

NO MERRI

GUBMINT CENSOR bs // TAIBBI TWITTER FILES

SEE RAGA

U CHIC-- GWU

SEE 5TH CIRCUIT dOUGHERTY ag ENDRUN bs landry

CLIMATE LAWSUITS?

OFTEN ON FOX

steve? andrew?

lamar? MULT? EXXON?

Mr. Turley has also often defended the actions of Attorney General William P. Barr, a longtime friend, against criticism from Democrats.

MADE BONES SELLOUT ON FAST FURIOUS?

---

THEHILL 12 25 BS

“We are the free world now.” Those words from Raphael Glucksmann, a French socialist member of the European Parliament, captured the pearl-clutching outrage of Europeans after the Trump administration did what no prior administration has ever done — stand up to Europe to defend the freedom of speech.

This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubiobarred five figures closely associated with European censorship efforts from traveling to the U.S. This includes Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner responsible for digital policy.

In a post on X, Rubio declared that the U.S. “will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship” and will target “leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States.”

Breton achieved infamy as one of the architects of the massive EU censorship system, which is now being globalized. Armed with the notorious Digital Service Act, Breton and others threatened American companies and officials that they would have to yield to European standards of free speech. After Breton learned that Musk was planning to interview Trump before the last presidential election, he even warned the X owner that he would be “monitored” and potentially subject to EU fines.

Socialist Glucksmann is now irate at “this scandalous sanction against Thierry Breton.”

“We are Europeans,” he declared. “We must defend our laws, our principles, our interests.” In other words, this is a war over whether Europe or the U.S. Constitution will dictate the scope of free speech for American companies and citizens.

Breton and his colleagues are finally being treated as what they are: a clear and present danger to the “indispensable right” that defines all Americans.

The EU has been enlisted by anti-free speech figures in the U.S. to force companies like X and Facebook to restore censorship of Americans. After Musk bought Twitter with a pledge to restore free-speech protections, Hillary Clintoncalled upon European officials to force him to censor under Europe’s Digital Services Act.

Nina Jankowicz, the former head of Biden’sinfamous Disinformation Governance Board, appeared before the European Parliament. She called upon the 27 EU countries to fight against the U.S., which she described as a global threat.

The E.U. enthusiastically took up the challenge. This year, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, which boosted the slogan, “A New World Order with European Values.” Bill and Hillary Clinton and other Americans cheered on the European efforts.

The Digital Services Act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” When it was passed over the condemnations of many of us in the free speech community, European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestagercelebrated by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore — that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

It is indeed a “real thing.” In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the challenges facing our republic in the 21st century, including the EU and its transnational governance model. Many on the left are supporting the erosion of national laws and values in favor of standards set by global experts and elites.

This cadre of American enablers has been increasingly vocal in Europe. Notably, late-night ABC host Jimmy Kimmeldelivered a Christmas Eve address in Great Britain denouncing the U.S. as a global threat. He declared that “from a fascism perspective, this has been a really great year. Tyranny is booming over here.”

It was crushingly ironic. Many of us have been writing for years about how free speech has been eviscerated in the United Kingdom, where people are being prosecuted for “toxic ideologies” and an ever-lengthening list of unacceptable political viewpoints.

Justice Amy Coney Barrettissued a warning this week about the collapse of free speech in the United Kingdom. Yet that is where a comedian, who is paid millions and attacks Trump nightly, went to complain about the threat to free speech in the U.S.

Both Vice President JD Vance and Secretary Rubio have delivered major speeches warning the EU about its effort to export censorship systems, particularly targeting American citizens and companies. After years of encouragement and enabling from the Obamaand Bidenadministrations, the U.S. government is finally in this fight.

That is why Europe is up in arms, denouncing the move to bar these officials as an attack on its own sovereignty. In other words, an effort to defend our own free speech values is a threat to the proclaimed “New World Order with European Values.”

In reality, I do not like travel bans. I prefer that these figures come to this country and face free-speech advocates. Yet despite our calls for Congress to get into this fight, it has done nothing due to opposition from Democratic members. We cannot wait as the EU weaponizes and globalizes censorship.

Glucksmann is right about one thing. This is a fight over who today can be rightfully called the “free world.” In the U.S., we continue to cling to the quaint notion that the free world should be based on … well, freedom.

*Jonathan Turleyis the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.

:{---

Review

“A masterpiece… a moving account on the very essence of liberty that should be on the shelf of every American." -- Mark Levin, host of Life, Liberty & Levin and #1 New York Times bestselling author

"A fluent take on history and politics from a thoughtful contrarian." ― Kirkus Reviews

“Turley demonstrates a discomforting, and painfully timely, truth: The phrase “democratic despotism” is not an oxymoron.” -- George F. Will, Pulitzer Prize winner and Washington Post columnist

“Rage and the Republic is Jonathan Turley's birthday gift to America to mark its 250 years of independence... A wise guide to avoid wrecking the American project." -- Uri Berliner, contributing editor, Free Press and former senior business editor at National Public Radio

“A fascinating and inspiring account of the foundations of the American system…a must-read.” -- Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union

“[A] scholarly tour de force that could not be more timely.” -- Charles Lane, author of The Day Freedom Died and nonresident senior fellow, the American Enterprise Institute

"Brilliant and riveting. The American Revolution comes alive, and so does the birth of the Constitution.” -- Jed Rubenfeld, Yale Law Professor, author, and constitutional law expert

“[A] valuable contribution to American civic life.” -- Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions

“In this riveting book, [Turley] revisits the past—focusing particularly on the remarkable life of Tom Paine and how the democratic principles of the French Revolution differed from our own—to identify the nature of the current threats to our liberties and our constitutional order. History has never been put to a better use.” -- Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution

About the Author

Jonathan Turley is a law professor, columnist, television analyst, and litigator. Since 1998, he has held the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School. He has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades, including representing members of Congress, judges, whistleblowers, five former Attorney Generals, celebrities, accused spies and terrorists, journalists, protesters, and the workers at the secret facility Area 51. Turley has testified before Congress over one hundred times, including during the impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. He was also lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment in US history. He has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA TODAY. Called the “dean of legal analysts” by The Washington Post, Turley has worked as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. In a study by Judge Richard Posner, Turley was found to be thirty-eighth in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” (and the second most cited law professor).

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Simon & Schuster
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 3, 2026

===

REF THEHILL

NEWSWEEK

Khaleda Rahman

National Correspondent

Khaleda Rahman is Newsweek's National Correspondent based in London, UK. Her focus is reporting on education and national news. Khaleda joined Newsweek in 2019 and had previously worked at the MailOnline in London, New York and Sydney. She is a graduate of University College London. Languages: English. You can get in touch with Khaleda by emailing k.rahman@newsweek.com

Writers Page

Newsweek is a Trust Project member

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has warned about threats to free speech in the United Kingdom.

Coney made the remarks during an interview with Bishop Robert Barron for an episode of his podcast, Bishop Barron Presents, which was released on Sunday.

“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said during a discussion about the purpose of law. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”

Barrett has been contacted for further comment via an email to a Supreme Court spokesperson.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on September 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, California. | Mario Tama/Getty Images

Why It Matters

Barrett’s comments come as Britain has faced increased scrutiny over its policing of speech, including from Vice President JD Vance, in recent months.

Some critics have focused on the Online Safety Act, rolled out this year, which requires social media companies to remove illegal content on their platforms. Critics say is being implemented too broadly and has resulted in the censorship of legal content.

Others have pointed to specific cases, including that of a British Catholic woman who recently became the first person charged for silently praying outside an abortion facility under a new buffer zone law. Meanwhile, police in London and Manchester recently pledged to arrest people who chant “globalize the intifada,” raising free speech concerns.

What To Know

In the interview, Barron refers to the Catholic thinker John Courtney Murray and his argument that in a pluralistic society, peace depends on shared principles. He goes on to ask Barrett whether what Catholics call “natural law” or “basic moral intuitions” can still play a role today.

But Barrett says the Constitution “could help to that end.”

“If we think about free speech or freedom of religion, I think we can see those guarantees as a way in which they can function as articles of peace,” she said.

She noted that in the U.S., the First Amendment prevents the government from criminalizing opinions, adding that it doesn’t just allow free speech but also forces tolerance.

“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement. There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas…we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”

Barrett, who is a devout Catholic, jointed the nation's highest court in 2020 after President Donald Trump appointed her to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her appointment cemented the court's conservative supermajority, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022.

What People Are Saying

Vice President JD Vance said at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year: “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”

He added: ”I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come, not from within Europe, but from within my own country.”

A U.S. State Department report on human rights practices in the U.K. released over the summer said, "significant human rights issues” in the U.K. included “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression.”

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told reporters in September: "Free speech is one of the founding values of the United Kingdom, and we protect it jealously and fiercely and always will.”

He added: ”I draw a limit between free speech and the speech of those that want to peddle pedophilia and suicide (on) social media to children. Therefore, I'm all for free speech, but I'm also for protecting children from things that will harm them."

What Happens Next

The debate over free speech in the U.K. is sure to continue in the coming months.

---

impeach biden

Upon the launch of the inquiry, George Washington University Law School professor and constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley said "the suggestion that [existing evidence] does not meet the standard for an inquiry into impeachable offenses is an example of willful blindness".^[97] Turley was later called on by Republican members of Congress to testify as a witness during the first impeachment inquiry hearing, where he also stated that Congress had failed to connect Hunter's alleged influence peddling to President Biden. He also stated that some of the details they had gathered "really do gravitate in favor of the president".^[98] Turley had previously been a witness during the 2019 impeachment inquiry against Trump, having been called to provide expert testimony on behalf of Trump's defense, as well as a witness in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, testifying in favor of impeaching Clinton.^[99]

---

congr test frequent flyer

ggl ai guess 6 25

Dr. Steven Quay: An expert witness in a forum on COVID-19 origins, indicating participation in related hearings.
Jonathan Turley: A law professor who testified for Republicans during impeachment inquiries.
Bruce Dubinsky and Eileen O'Connor: A forensic accountant and former DOJ official, respectively, who testified alongside Turley in a Biden impeachment inquiry hearing.

---

rww 9 25 4th amend rAciAL PROFILE?

09/10/2025

Peter Montgomery

“Supreme Court Shocks—Trump’s Power Just Exploded” reads the typically hyperbolic headline from religious-right podcaster Steve Turley. “The Supreme Court's recent rulings are a game-changer for Trump's immigration policies, empowering ICE with aggressive tactics,” reads Turley’s Wednesday morning email newsletter. “With Kavanaugh's backing, ethnicity now plays a role in enforcement—cue the controversy!”

Turley is referencing a ruling by the Supreme Court’s MAGA majority overturning lower court rulings against racial profiling by ICE as it conducted roving raids in Los Angeles. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent called the majority ruling “unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees.”

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” the dissent says.

In contrast, Turley celebrates that the Court’s MAGA justices are engaging in “a fundamental restructuring of American government power” by “systematically removing judicial constraints on executive authority that have existed for decades.”

It’s not exactly surprising that Turley is jubilant about MAGA justices approving authoritarian actions by Trump. Like many U.S. right-wing activists, Turley has been a big fan of dictatorial leaders like Hungary’s Victor Orbán. .

During the first Trump term in 2019, Turley titled a podcast “WHITES Project to Become Dominant SUPERMAJORITY in U.S.” and declared that multiculturalism is “slowly but surely dissipating.” At that year’s World Congress of Families conference in Italy, Turley crowed that religious traditionalists were having more children than secular people, ensuring that America’s future would be “evangelical, Mormon, and Amish.” Turley celebrated legislation in Uganda criminalizing homosexuality.

Turley’s “Turley Talks” operation is based in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. He was deeply involved in promoting the failed gubernatorial campaign of Christian nationalist state Sen. Doug Mastriano.

---

2023

NTP

Breaking News

Dow down 2,200 points as $6.4T is wiped out in two-day bloodbath

Opinion

Dems’ police-state tactics won’t stop reporters like Matt Taibbi

By Jonathan Turley

Published April 21, 2023

:{Updated April 22, 2023,

184 Comments

Matt Taibbi has been accused of possible perjury.

State Department’s Global Engagement Center — accused of pushing censorship to combat online ‘disinformation’ — shuts down

Vice President-elect JD Vance departs from the Senate Chambers during a vote in the U.S. Capitol on December 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Benjamin Weingarten: Congress’ 1,500-page spending bill hides a sneaky reprieve for federal censors

As every elementary student is told, a single letter can change an entire thought.

Leave off an “S” and your dessert turns into a desert.

A missing “R” turns a friend into a fiend.

For journalist Matt Taibbi, the brief accidental addition of an “A” may not only have changed the identity of a group, but, according to a ranking Democrat, put the convict into the meaning of conviction.

Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-VI), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, issued a letter that accused Taibbi of possible perjury because of an error that he made, not in testimony but in a tweet he later corrected.

At issue is Taibbi referring to CISA, the government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, when he meant to refer to CIS, the Center for Internet Security.

Plaskett’s threatening letter to Taibbi was immediately pushed on MSNBC by host Mehdi Hasan, who was shocked by the added “A” and called for the journalist to be criminally investigated for having “deliberately & under oath misrepresented” the facts.

(It was an ironic moment, as writer Lee Fang noted, given past allegations made against Hasan over false statements.)

For Taibbi, this is only the latest such unnerving moment.

When he was testifying before Congress on government censorship efforts, the IRS sent an agent to his home to look into irregularities on his taxes from years earlier.

Delegate Stacey Plaskett

Delegate Stacey Plaskett issued a letter that accused Taibbi of possible perjury.

Plaskett also attacked Taibbi in the hearing as a “so-called journalist” and said he (and another journalist witness) were “a direct threat” to the safety of others for having reported the censorship story.

And she insisted he reveal his source for his Twitter Files reporting.

Taibbi and others also objected to a demand from Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan for Musk to “identify all journalists” who had access to the Twitter Files.

See Also

Matt Taibbi's Twitter account has been "shadow banned" by Elon Musk.

Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi ‘shadow banned’ by Elon Musk in Substack feud

I testified before this same subcommittee and warned the Democrats not to adopt McCarthy-like tactics in threatening and targeting critics.

Members seemed to take that warning as more of an invitation than an admonition. Immediately after the hearing, figures like former Sen. (and MSNBC contributor) Claire McCaskill denounced witnesses as “Putin lovers,” while current members accused free-speech advocates of supporting “insurrection.”

Democrats have continued to attack virtually every witness who has appeared to discuss the dangers to free speech or the need for transparency on the government’s censorship efforts.

They often attack witnesses and then refuse to let them respond. Recently, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) used that tactic on a gun-rights advocate in cutting her off as she attempted to explain an answer.

Porter later demanded a perjury investigation as a result of the testimony.

Most chilling about Plaskett’s threatening letter and the MSNBC’s attacks is that they are entirely baseless.

Plaskett told Taibbi, “This mistake is important because, by adding an ‘A,’ you weren’t making a harmless spelling error. Rather, you were alleging that CISA — a government entity — was working with the EIP [Election Integrity Partnership] to have posts removed from social media.”

She added, “When presented with this misinformation, you acknowledged you had made ‘an error’ by intentionally altering the acronym CIS and you subsequently deleted your erroneous tweet.”

Elon Musk

Taibbi was reportedly shadow-banned by Twitter.

The claim that this error was “intentional” is ridiculous. Moreover, and here is the kicker, CISA is involved in the censorship efforts.

As Fang noted on Substack, the EIP listed CISA as one of its key government stakeholders and worked with CISA on censorship efforts.

But this is not about the added “A.” It’s about the loss of any sense of decency and civility in politics.

As someone who comes from a liberal Democratic family, the shock over the Democratic Party’s embrace of censorship is only exceeded by its vicious treatment of journalists and free-speech advocates attempting to expose government efforts.

Despite these attacks and the assistance of an enabling media, the evidence of the government censorship efforts has continued to mount.

We are learning of an array of grants and government-support programs to target, blacklist and censor citizens.

It’s clear Democratic members will continue to seek to intimidate witnesses and deter them from coming forward with free-speech concerns.

In these hearings, I got off light.

When I testified on the Twitter Files before the hearing with Taibbi, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) criticized me for offering “legal opinions” without actually working at Twitter.

It was akin to saying a witness should not discuss the contents of the Pentagon Papers unless he worked at the Pentagon. It was particularly bizarre because I was asked about the content of the Twitter Files.

Taibbi and others also objected to a demand from Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan for Musk to “identify all journalists” who had access to the Twitter Files.

ZUMAPRESS.com

The content — like the content of the Pentagon Papers — is “facts.” The implication of those facts are opinions.

As with an attack from Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), I was cut off like other witnesses in attempting to explain.

Members can cut off, attack and threaten criminal prosecution, but it will not work.

Censorship systems have never succeeded in destroying ideas, and jailing journalists have never stopped reporting.

That does not mean these abusive attacks will not continue or escalate.

There is a whiff of panic in these efforts as House committees force greater transparency and greater public access to this evidence.

Now it appears these efforts to shield government censorship has come down to spelling. Indeed, if Delegate Plaskett has her way, that added “A” may prove the difference between a free press and authoritarianism.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Filed under censorship congress democrats free speech ftc msnbc twitter files X (formerly Twitter) 4/21/23

---

===

mma

Fox News repeatedly misled viewers about Virginia’s last-minute voter purge

Fox figures are falsely claiming the Biden administration is “pushing for noncitizens to vote in the 2024 election”

Written by Casey Wexler

Published 10/31/24 2:56 PM EDT

In separate segments, Fox News legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn and network contributor Jonathan Turley both falsely suggested that the Biden administration is fighting against Virginia’s purge of 1,600 voters to push for noncitizens to vote. In reality the administration and civil rights groups sued to protect Virginia citizens who are legally allowed to vote — not to allow noncitizens to cast ballots — and objected to the state’s move to purge voter rolls less than 90 days before an election, which violates federal law.

Since August 7, state officials have removed 1,600 Virginia voters who were supposedly suspected to be noncitizens from the voter rolls. However, subsequent reporting found “the program has also erroneously ensnared U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.” From NPR:

Civil rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice had sued Virginia over the program earlier this month. U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles ruled Friday the state program violated federal law by systematically removing voters too close to a federal election.

Under the National Voter Registration Act, during the 90 days before an election, states must pause certain kinds of voter list maintenance programs that systematically remove voters to ensure mistakes aren't made too close to the election.

On October 30, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that Virginia did not have to restore those 1,600 people to the voter rolls before Election Day.

Discussing the previous lower-court decision on October 29, Urbahn did not acknowledge the missed 90-day time frame or the citizens removed from the rolls. Instead, Urbahn suggested “the Biden administration [is] pushing for noncitizens to vote in the 2024 election” and called the lawsuit to prevent citizens from being purged “bizarre” and “a bad look for DOJ,” adding that “it could have been to send a message.”

Video

CitationFrom the October, 29, 2024, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom

On The Story with Martha MacCallum, Turley claimed that the Biden administration was actively suing specifically to allow noncitizens to vote: “You have people saying I'm not a citizen and I want to vote and we're saying we can't do that, and now the Biden-Harris administration is saying you will do that with the help of these federal courts.”

---

Fox News' Jonathan Turley downplays Jack Smith’s filing alleging Donald Trump attempted “to overturn the election”

10/02/24 mma

### How Fox is dismissing the unsealed Trump filing

10/03/24 11:41 AM EDT

### Fox legal analyst on Jack Smith's new filing: “It sure looks like blatant election interference”

10/03/24 9:25 AM EDT

### Fox News' Jonathan Turley downplays Jack Smith’s filing alleging Donald Trump attempted “to overturn the election”

10/02

===

july 8, 2024Last Aired July 28, 2024### After Words with Jonathan Turley

Law professor Jonathan Turley highlighted individuals who’ve fought to exercise and defend the right to free speech throughout U.S. history. He was interviewed by author and American Civil L… booktv

no lnx

Myths and facts: Debunking right-wing lies and misinformation about Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial

As Trump’s first criminal trial begins, right-wing media repeat his lies and push new falsehoods

WRITTEN BY AUDREY MCCABE, REED MCMASTER, PETE TSIPIS & GIDEON TAAFFE

PUBLISHED 04/19/24

Update (last updated 5/1/24): This article has been updated to include additional examples.

On April 15, former President Donald Trump walked into a Manhattan courtroom for the first day of his trial for charges of falsifying business records in order to conceal hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump and right-wing media immediately began spreading lies about the trial.

Right-wing media have wrongly claimed: that a gag order the judge issued on Trump is a violation of his freedom of speech, that the judge has barred Trump from attending his son’s graduation, that Trump should have been charged with misdemeanors rather than felonies, and that Trump should not be prosecuted because Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Steele dossier is similar and yielded only a fine.

In reality, the case centers on Trump’s attempts to conceal hush money payments to Daniels, who allegedly had an affair with the former president. Trump funneled the payments to Daniels through his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who was sentenced to three years in prison for his role in the scheme as well as other crimes. Prosecutors allege that Trump violated election law in paying off Daniels as it was part of a coordinated effort to assist his 2016 campaign and may have also violated state tax law by mischaracterizing Cohen’s reimbursement.

Experts say Merchan’s gag order is consistent with case law. Merchan also declined to answer Trump’s request to be excused from court on May 17 to attend his son’s graduation, stating that it was too early to make a decision but signaling an openness to it.

Myth: Trump’s gag order is unconstitutional and a violation of his freedom of speech

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett stated that “the gag order is a clear violation of the First Amendment.” He then claimed that “judges get away with it because by the time it’s challenged on appeal the case is over.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/15/24]

Jarrett again criticized Trump’s gag order, saying that especially as the leading candidate for president, Trump has a “constitutional right to speak out to defend himself.” He also claimed that “the judge wants to gag Trump so he can’t respond to some of the accusations against him.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 4/15/24]

Conservative judicial activist Mike Davis claimed that Trump’s gag order is “illegal” and that “gag orders are supposed to protect criminal defendants.” Davis continued, “You don't put a gag order on a criminal defendant to gag him during a criminal trial, especially when that criminal defendant is a candidate.” [Real America’s Voice, War Room with Steve Bannon, 4/15/24]

Trump ally and anti-Muslim bigot Laura Loomer tweeted that she would “gladly pay the fine for President Trump so he can have free speech.” Trump has amplified Loomer’s content attacking Merchan’s family members, leading Loomer to claim that she would pay Trump’s legal fines “if this asshole named Judge Merchan is really going to target Trump for sharing my videos on Truth Social.” [Twitter/X, 4/15/24; Politico, 4/15/24]

Fact: Experts say the gag order is consistent with New York law and precedent

Merchan has issued a gag order preventing Trump from making public statements that are meant to interfere with the case, including statements about witnesses and their potential testimony, prosecutors, court staff and their family members, and the members of Merchan’s and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s families. Trump has repeatedly disparaged Merchan’s daughter online and has a history of attacking individuals involved in his legal proceedings. [Reuters, 4/12/24; The Washington Post, 4/17/24]

Experts say that Merchan was following case law that goes back decades, that gag orders are rarely found to violate the First Amendment, and that Trump “is free to discuss the criminal justice system but not to make ad hominem attacks on particular people associated with the case.” The gag order does not prevent Trump from speaking about the case, as he can “raise political arguments as he sees fit” as well as comment on Merchan and Bragg. [PolitiFact, 4/11/24; Just Security, 3/27/24; The Associated Press, 4/9/24]

Merchan initially resisted imposing the gag order, urging Trump not to make statements that could incite violence and stating that he was “bending over backwards” to give the former president every opportunity “to speak in furtherance of his candidacy.” After Merchan expanded the initial gag order on April 1, Trump reacted on Truth Social, “They can talk about me but I can’t talk about them???” [The Washington Post, 4/9/24]

Myth: Merchan is blocking Trump from attending Barron’s graduation

After leaving the courtroom on Monday, Trump stated to reporters, “It looks like the judge will not let me go to the graduation of my son.” He later reiterated the claim on Truth Social, claiming that he is “being prohibited from attending.” [Associated Press, 4/16/24]

Newsmax host Carl Higbie claimed that Merchan barred Trump from attending Barron’s graduation. Higbie then encouraged Trump to dare Merchan to hold him in contempt, saying, “If I was Trump, I would say, ‘You know what, man? Bring it. Put me in jail. I beg you.’” [Newsmax, Carl Higbie Frontline, 4/15/24]

Fox News personality Rachel Campos-Duffy claimed that Democrats are “trying to demoralize” Trump by not allowing him to attend his son’s graduation. Campos-Duffy added, “This feels super communist.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 4/16/24]

Fox Nation host Piers Morgan, appearing on The Five, also encouraged Trump to get himself arrested by attending Barron’s graduation. Morgan stated, “If you're watching, President Trump, just go to the graduation. Every parent in America, whether they like you or hate you, will go, ‘Yeah. I’d have done that too.’” [Fox News, The Five, 4/15/24]

Right-wing influencer Dom Lucre tweeted that it was “barbaric” to not allow Trump to attend his son’s graduation. [Twitter/X, 4/15/24]

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk urged Trump to risk arrest by attending Barron’s graduation. Kirk stated, “I think Donald Trump should defy the New York judge order and go to Barron's graduation. I think he should just defy the order and go to Barron's graduation. Get arrested. It's just more indictments, not as if you're already not facing 700 years in federal prison.” [Real America’s Voice, The Charlie Kirk Show, 4/17/24]

Fact: Merchan has not made a decision yet regarding Barron’s graduation

When asked if Trump would be excused from attending court on May 17 for the high school graduation of his son, Merchan said it was too early in the trial for a decision but signaled an openness to it if the trial proceeds on schedule. [Rolling Stone, 4/16/24]

Myth: Trump should have been charged with misdemeanors, and the charges were filed outside of the statute of limitations

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld cited Fox legal contributor Jonathan Turley to claim Trump’s charges were an elevated misdemeanor. Gutfeld said, “According to legal expert Jonathan Turley, Trump is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records related to payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. Turley added that it's 'a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations ran out.' Somehow none of that matters in New York City, where guys who randomly punch kids are given a pat on the back and a key to the city, but when it comes to porn star payments you’d better keep records more detailed than a CVS receipt.” [Fox News, Gutfeld, 4/16/24]

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade claimed that Trump’s felony charges are actually misdemeanor crimes. He stated, “So they have to show that the felony charges, the prosecutors must show that Trump not only falsified or caused business records to be entered falsely, which would be misdemeanor, but they also have to show an intent to commit and conceal a second crime. But so far Alvin Bragg hasn't told us what that second crime is. So when are we going to find out what the second crime is? And don't you think defense needs to know?” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/15/24]

Fox News legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn stated that Bragg “has somehow manufactured these very low-level misdemeanor charges into felonies.” Washington Times editor Charles Hurt also called the crime a “paperwork violation” with “no victim.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/15/24]

In an appearance on Fox, Turley called Trump’s hush money trial a “Frankenstein case” made up of a “dead misdemeanor” and “dead alleged federal felony.” According to Turley, “They took a dead misdemeanor, they attached it to a dead alleged federal felony and zapped it back into life. So — many of us are just amazed to watch this actually walk into court because it’s not a recognizable crime that any of us have seen.” [Fox News, America Reports, 4/15/24]

Right-wing radio host Sean Hannity complained on his show that the alleged infraction is a “misdemeanor, unless they can prove it was done with intent to commit or conceal another crime, and this guy has not even brought that up.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 4/16/24]

Fact: Trump was charged with felonies because he allegedly concealed an underlying crime, and the statute of limitations was extended

Under New York state law, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony if the defendant altered the records to conceal an underlying crime. Prosecutors have three theories demonstrating Trump’s violation of federal and state election law and New York tax law. [Politico, 6/13/23]

Forbes: “The timeline for bringing criminal charges was extended by more than a year during the pandemic, and prosecutors could also argue the five-year clock was paused whenever Trump spent extended periods living in Florida.” PBS reported: “In New York, the clock can stop on the statute of limitations when a potential defendant is continuously outside the state. Trump visited New York rarely over the four years of his presidency and now lives mostly in Florida and New Jersey.” [Forbes, 4/15/24; PBS, 3/11/23]

Myth: Trump should not be prosecuted because Hillary Clinton only paid a fine for the Steele dossier misreporting

Turley falsely compared Trump’s charges to Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier. He wrote in the New York Post, “Once again, the contrast to other controversies is telling. Before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims.” [New York Post, 4/14/24]

Far-right troll Jack Posobiec posted, “In 2022, Hillary Clinton quietly settled a campaign finance violation over reporting the Steele Dossier funding as ‘legal services.’ She paid a fine and was never arrested. The same thing Trump is on trial for right now.” [Twitter/X, 4/16/24]

Gregg Jarrett argued Trump’s prosecution was unfair, because Clinton was only fined for the Steele dossier despite also incorrectly booking the expense. He argued, “Hillary Clinton did pretty much the same thing. She too used a lawyer to secretly pay for the phony Steele dossier and booking it as ‘legal expenses.’ She was fined by the FEC but she wasn’t prosecuted.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/15/24]

Roger Stone posted, “Hillary Clinton falsely reported the payments by her campaign for the fabrication of the ‘Steele dossier’ as ‘legal expenses.’ I don't recall her being prosecuted. #TwoTieredJustice.” [Twitter/X, 4/16/24]

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway promoted Turley’s article and highlighted the Clinton comparison. She wrote, “Excellent point from Turley here. When DNC/Hillary Clinton lied about the 2016 campaign funding of the Steele Dossier, there were no criminal charges or media calls for accountability. But the Trump NDA gets charged?? Rule of law destroyed.” [Twitter/X, 4/15/24]

Fact: Trump’s hush money payments allegedly involved the falsification of business records to conceal a crime, rather than mischaracterizing campaign expenditures

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign hired a firm to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, which led to the compilation of a dossier by former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The report made salacious allegations about Trump, many of which have since been discredited. [CNN, 11/18/21]

The campaign misreported the spending as legal services rather than opposition research. Under an agreement with the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign paid $105,000 and $8,000 in fines, respectively. [The Associated Press, 3/31/22]

Unlike in Trump’s case, the civil penalty paid by Clinton’s campaign and the DNC “appears to relate to highly technical rules about how campaign spending through an intermediary should be reported.” The DNC and Clinton campaign were fined for improper reporting, while Trump was charged with falsifying business records to allegedly conceal a crime. [Politico, 3/31/22]

The Washington Post reported that “This analogy isn’t terribly strong, given, first, that the campaign and the Democratic National Committee faced punishment for the reporting and, second, that it centered on the mechanics of properly reporting campaign spending to the FEC.” [The Washington Post, 3/21/23]

Myth: All Trump did was use a nondisclosure agreement, which is perfectly legal

On The Faulkner Focus, former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky said, “It would have been perfectly legal … and was legal” for Trump to make a payment for the NDA “to get rid of this nuisance that business people get rid of all the time.” He argued that cases like this end in acquittal “when you have a good jury.” [Fox News, The Faulkner Focus, 4/15/24]

Fox News host Mark Levin disregarded the theory of the case and said, “It's not hush money. They're nondisclosure agreements.” [Westwood One, The Mark Levin Podcast, 4/24/24]

Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy focused on the NDA, saying, “It’s not illegal to bury compromised or politically-damaging information.” He added, “There is nothing criminal about that. Nondisclosure agreements are a staple of civil litigation in the United States.” [Fox News, The Faulkner Focus, 4/26/24]

On Fox News, former Trump attorney Jim Trusty claimed Trump's NDA usage “does not actually constitute anything criminal.” He called the case against Trump “tawdry scandalous distasteful stuff” and complained that, “If nondisclosure agreements were criminal, Congress would be in prison right now.” [Fox News, America Reports, 4/25/24]

Fact: The trial is not about the NDA, but whether Trump illegally tried to cover up the payment for the NDA

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has specifically refuted the idea that the NDA was criminal, but asserts that the crime was in how Trump hid that payment. In an interview, Bragg stated, “We would say it's about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.” [USA Today, 4/15/24]

While there is nothing inherently illegal about a nondisclosure agreement, when an NDA is used to cover up a crime or the money paid is an illegal payment, the NDA can become a criminal matter. As Tess Wilkinson-Ryan of the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law explained to Slate: “It’s legally OK if the information being kept confidential is not about a crime, or if keeping it confidential doesn’t otherwise violate the law. If the payment itself is illegal—imagine bribery or blackmail—that’s a matter of criminal law.” [Slate, 3/27/23]

Myth: Prosecutors are charging Trump over killing negative stories, which isn't a crime

Fox News legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn said, “It is not a crime to do a catch-and-kill scheme.” She continued, saying, “It is not a crime to suppress bad stories about yourself, whether you are running for president or not. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/26/24]

Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen misleadingly claimed that Trump was “accused of suppressing a negative news story.” He added, “If that was a crime, every campaign press secretary in America would be prosecuted.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 4/26/24]

On The Faulkner Focus, former Assistant District Attorney Phil Holloway claimed David Pecker’s testimony is proof the prosecution is “having a very difficult time finding anything that was actually illegal.” Holloway claimed it is not election interference, but rather “normal campaign conduct.” [Fox News, The Faulkner Focus, 4/26/24]

Fox News contributor Sol Wisenberg argued, “The idea that paying for a catch-and-kill story could constitute election interference in a way that lifts this misdemeanor into a felony … is a joke.” [Fox News, Ingraham Angle, 4/26/24]

Fact: The legality of the catch-and-kill scheme is not in question; it is part of the prosecution's argument that Trump was trying to protect his electoral chances

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified to paying Playboy model Karen McDougal for the rights to her story about having an affair with Trump and then never releasing the story. According to the Associated Press, there had been “some talk of reimbursement from Trump’s orbit, but Pecker was ultimately never paid” for the McDougal story. [Associated Press, 4/25/24]

Pecker testified that he believed Trump wanted the McDougal story killed in order to help protect Trump’s presidential bid. Pecker speculated that Trump’s interest in squashing McDougal’s story was “basically [about] what the impact would be to the campaign and the election.” [The Washington Post, 4/25/24]

The prosecution brought forward the catch-and-kill scheme described by Pecker in part to establish a pattern in which Trump and his associates buried negative news stories close to Election Day, not to question the criminality of the scheme itself. Pecker’s testimony also helps the prosecution introduce other aspects of their argument, including Michael Cohen’s alleged role as an intermediary for Trump. [The Guardian, 4/26/24]

Myth: Legal analysts don’t understand what crime Trump is being accused of committing

Fox News contributor Todd Piro told Laura Ingraham that he can’t say what the crime is, adding, “We’ve read legal scholars say they can't figure out the crime.” He said after watching courtroom testimony he still doesn’t know what the crime is. [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 4/25/24]

Fox News legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn claimed it is still “unclear what this underlying crime is that Donald Trump is alleged to have concealed.” Summarizing the first part of the trial, Kupec said, “They did not reveal anything that was criminal in nature or that directly related to Donald Trump's payments to Michael Cohen who paid Stormy Daniels.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/25/24]

Fox anchor John Roberts questioned, “Where is the crime?” and emphasized similar comments from Fox News contributors Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley, as well as Trump’s argument that the trial should “be over” because there is “no underlying criminal behavior here.” Fox anchor Shannon Bream said prosecutors will have to convince jury members that there is an underlying crime. [Fox News, America Reports, 4/26/24]

Fact: The alleged underlying crime is about Trump committing fraud to better his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election

Trump was charged with 34 felony counts on the basis that business records were allegedly falsified to conceal an underlying crime of violating state and federal election law as well as New York tax code. While New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg still needs to prove that Trump had intent to violate the law, Bragg has extensively explained the underlying crime Trump is accused of committing. [Media Matters, 4/15/24]

---

lamar ~ AG’s

Another expert, Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School, the AGs’ “arguments go too far” and “what they have done contravenes academic freedom and free speech.”

---

What happened to Jonathan Turley, really?

ROBT W

Some years ago, academics and legal and political commentators began joining in a lament that eventually became a kind of trope: “What the heck has happened to Jonathan Turley?” The sad refrain recalled that George Washington University law professor Turley was once a serious and respected legal scholar—a civil libertarian who often constructively criticized liberal cant –and then observed that he had turned his energy into appearing all over the media, but especially welcomed the chance to be on Fox News. Turley, who acknowledges that he is a paid Fox News contributor, began to regularly pop up on the Fox shows that purport to be journalistic, but also the clownishly right-wing Fox & Friends in the morning and then the demagogic right-wing propaganda evening programming. He presented himself as a kind of Alan Dershowitz with table manners—his stance was that of one of the last remaining “principled liberals” speaking truth to leftist power.

Turley reports that he voted for Obama in 2008. Nevertheless, and no doubt with poignant reluctance, he launched a series of attacks on the Obama administration. His shtick involved saying things that pretty much reinforced the Fox News conservative meme of the day, but with a genteel tone, inflected with a kind of tragic regret that he was intellectually and morally obliged to say these things to keep liberals honest and American discourse civilized. He surely knew that regardless of the exact words he uttered himself, what the Fox audience heard was always going to be “Famed liberal legal scholar agrees with what Fox News hosts are saying about how awful liberals are.”

:{:{But now the “What the heck happened?” trope needs an update. In the last few years, starting during the heat of Donald Trump’s first impeachment saga in 2019, the Turley phenomenon has gone from odd to puzzling to disturbing. The tonal pretense is still that he is the rare Burkean honest man, horrified that politics have become too contentious and law too political. But his earlier interest in showing up on Fox News and in chastising Democrats and liberals has become, well, compulsive and obsessive.}:

Not just in his Fox News appearances but also in his prolific tweets and blog posts, we see Republican sycophancy rendered in a sober scholarly tone with pearl-clutching sanctimonious nostalgia for some pre-political era of American law. There is the unintentionally comical self-referential stuff (roughly translated: “As readers of my earlier columns will recall,” or “When I was honored to be asked to testify before Congress,” or “The court has now agreed with the position I earlier expressed”). But a newer reader of Turley might conclude that he now actually despisesDemocrats in a venomous way.}:

Turley gleefully reports court decisions that go against Biden or other Democrats—and almost never or barely mentions any that the GOP loses. While his supposed added value is legal expertise, he takes time to chortle at random Biden gaffes. But what about the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world? Well, he has mentioned her, but it was to argue that the calls to disqualify her from Congress were unsound. He virtually second-chairs the Trump lawyers fighting searches and subpoenas, or the defense of Jan. 6 figures facing indictment. Oh, he does the occasional feint the other way, reminding us, say, that he once said that there were some crimes at the Capitol.

A related role for Turley is, as he puts it, a Free Speech Absolutist or Internet Originalist. Calling out every offense to these principles—and asserting that the public/private distinction should not matter—he has treated Elon Musk as a savior. Of course, the left gives plenty of fodder when it says foolish things about obviously protected speech being too harmful to be tolerated—especially on college campuses. But almost every day, Turley plays the anti-left Paul Revere on this, again with the occasional reassuring reminder that somewhere a while back he noted that a leftist was censored. Read enough of Turley’s pronouncements on this subject and you might begin to think that maybe the cure for bad speech really IS less speech.

For those (very sane) people who don’t have the time to keep up on the evolution of the Turley oeuvre, here is a recent, short Turley post that distills the essence of the Turley vision as well as “Ode on a Grecian Urn” did for Keats’. It’s his “Winners and Losers” takeaway from the 2022 midterms in the New York Post last week, and it brings the rhetorical maneuver of the non sequitur to the highest artistic level.

Turley’s midterm quandary—how to boost the poor performance by the party he has loyally served as academically credentialed propagandist and opposition researcher—is unenviable. And so we must admire the almost-subtlety with which he gleans the key midterm takeaway—that the real midterm winner is people who profess to play the middle while sticking sharply to the right, such as … Jonathan Turley:

Despite the rivaling predictions of red waves and blue walls, the night showed what was always abundantly clear: We are still a deeply divided country. Congress will reflect that division in terms of power distribution — and that may be a good thing.

Turley confidently concludes that by giving the GOP an embarrassingly low margin of control in the House and a near-tie in the Senate, voters fulfilled his noble dream of a sanely nonpolitical politics and preservation of purity of the law. But wait, what happened to “division” among the country’s voters? Turley says this:

Once again, voters preferred divided government with a Congress willing and able to challenge a president rather than remain a pure pedestrian in the exercise of governance. There’s now a moving part in Congress that’s been dormant for two years. As those institutional gears engage, checks and balances will again force greater accountability and exposure in the constitutional system.

So, for Turley, the miserable GOP performance shows that the voters wanted divided government in the good ol’ checks and balances way. But what will a divided government look like with a House of Representatives in which the Freedom Caucus and the likes of Reps. Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Paul Gosar demand influence that a feckless Kevin McCarthy tries to resist? Well, Turley informs us, without actually identifying any similarly radical Democrats, that extremism is an issue for both parties!

The problem is that so few true moderates remain in Congress. The result is that while the country remains moderate, Congress will again not reflect that broad center.

Ah, the people agree with Turley’ s moderation (along with politely divided government). But faithless politicians sow the polarized version of divided government. (Don’t ask which side most of those faithless politicians are on and who elected them.) Certainly, the real issue in Turley’s world is not that politicians act polarized to appeal to a polarized public—goaded on by media platforms like Fox News and commentators like Turley—and not that it was the especially nutty polarized positions of some GOP candidates that led to the numbers just happening to come out the way they did. Turley’s worldview always prevails, no matter what the actual facts on the ground say.

Take another one of Turley’s big winners, constitutionalism, again under threat by generic politicians (all of whom happen to be Democrats):

The last two years have seen frontal assaults on constitutional values ranging from separation of powers to free speech. Democrats applauded, for example, as President Joe Biden unilaterally waived roughly $500 billion in [STUDENT?]VS MTG COVID LOAN? loans owed to the American people. While courts repeatedly found Biden to have violated the Constitution, Congress remained conspicuously silent even as it joined the president in declaring Republicans threats to the Constitution.

In an August New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for our founding charter to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” It’s safe to say voters effectively reclaimed constitutionalism from such extremist voices.

Here, Turley purports to speak in general terms about assaults on constitutional values. But for him the only assailants worth mentioning are Democrats, and the issues he mentions are ones of reasonable debate, rather than clear-cut constitutional violations, like, say, sending a mob of violent supporters to attack the Capitol and try to seize power after an election loss. On the whole, our current factionalism is entirely blamed on one side, and that happens to be the side he’s paid to criticize.

Another of Turley’s winners, despite all evidence to the contrary, is the Supreme Court:

For two years, the left has targeted the nation’s highest court with calls for packing it. Polls have long showed this movement was contained almost entirely within the far left. Yet attacking the court and its justices was an article of faith for many Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who called for raw court packing. While the attacks are likely to continue, the shift in Congress will put an end to such radical proposals.

Ah, in rejecting historic anti-SCOTUS demagoguery, the voters fulfilled Turley’s dream of public appreciation of the utterly nonpolitical Supreme Court as a genteel academic seminar. Not that (a) court packing pretty much never got mentioned in the Democratic campaign, and (b) these Democrats did shockingly well, and (c) what did demonstrably help the Democrats was one Supreme Court decision that vast numbers of voters (especially young women) viewed as proof that the Supreme Court had been corrupted by right-wing ideology—namely the Dobbsruling overturning Roe v. Wade and ending the constitutional right to an abortion.

Now Turley’s losers:

The media: Outlets, in framing the election, consistently echoed Democrats’ narratives — yet failed to deliver them victory. The media now face the prospect of inquiries that could further erode voter trust.

This was published one day after last week’s midterms, and so perhaps pre-written before the almost universally acknowledged Republican failure in this election had become so widespread, so maybe Turley was getting ahead of himself. Or maybe he’s just delusional.

Another loser:

The Bidens: After successfully avoiding any media or congressional scrutiny of their alleged influence peddling, time is up for the Bidens. Despite Attorney General Merrick Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel, they will face investigations launched with the full authority of the Oversight Committee. Garland will also confront demands to show the same aggressive prosecution of contempt of Congress when Biden associates are the subject of such referrals.

11/22

---

[### Jonathan Turley: Books

Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com › Books-Jonathan-Turley](https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jonathan-Turley/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJonathan+Turley)

A timely, revelatory look at freedom of speech—our most basic right and the one that protects all the others.

Free speech is a human right, and the free expression of thought is at the very essence of being human. The United States was founded on this premise, and the First Amendment remains the single greatest constitutional commitment to the right of free expression in history. Yet there is a systemic effort to bar opposing viewpoints on subjects ranging from racial discrimination to police abuse, from climate change to gender equity. These measures are reinforced by the public’s anger and rage; flash mobs appear today with the slightest provocation. We all lash out against anyone or anything that stands against our preferred certainty.

The Indispensable Right places the current attacks on free speech in their proper historical, legal, and political context. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not only written for times like these, but in a time like this. This country was born in an age of rage and for 250 years we have periodically lost sight of the value of free expression. The history of the struggle for free speech is the story of extraordinary people—nonconformists who refuse to yield to abusive authority—and here is a mosaic of vivid characters and controversies.

Jonathan Turley takes you through the figures and failures that have shaped us and then shows the unique dangers of our current moment. The alliance of academic, media, and corporate interests with the government’s traditional wish to control speech has put us on an almost irresistible path toward censorship. The Indispensable Rightreminds us that we remain a nation grappling with the implications of free expression and with the limits of our tolerance for the speech of others. For rather than a political crisis, this is a crisis of faith.

:{:{Jonathan Turley is a law professor, columnist, television analyst, and litigator. Since 1998, he has held the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School.}:

He has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades, including representing members of Congress, judges, whistleblowers, five former Attorney Generals, celebrities, accused spies and terrorists, journalists, protesters, and the workers at the secret facility Area 51.

:{:{Turley has testified before Congress over 100 times, including during the impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. He was also lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment in US history. He has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA TODAY.}:

Called the “dean of legal analysts” by The Washington Post, Turley has worked as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. In a study by Judge Richard Posner, Turley was found to be thirty-eighth in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” (and the second most cited law professor).}:}:

NOT IMPRINT?

Publisher: Simon & Schuster (June 18, 2024)
Length: 448 pages

[---

Testimony Regarding Impeachment with Commentary by Howard Bitterman

by Jonathan Turley and Howard Bitterman | Dec 9, 2019

---

guide to citizen law enforcement: Fighting environmental crime at facilities of the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense (Facing reality reports)

by Jonathan Turley | Jan 1, 1996 tides fdn anti nuke?

A guide to citizen law enforcement: Fighting environmental crime at facilities of the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense (Facing reality reports).

4.6seller rating(_2.3K_) · ‎30-day returns

[### The Indispensable Right | Book by Jonathan Turley

Simon & Schuster

https://www.simonandschuster.com › books › Jonatha...](https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Indispensable-Right/Jonathan-Turley/9781668047040)

The Indispensable Right by Jonathan Turley - A timely, revelatory look at freedom of speech—our most basic right and the one that protects all the others.

$29.99

---

briefly ok so compensation?

Jonathan Turley ripped for defending Trump’s 'rot in hell' rant: 'Rationalize the irrational' - Alternet.org

Conservative lawyer ripped for defending Trump’s 'rot in hell' rant with 'Die Hard' comparison - Alternet.org

---

9 23

Thursday morning, September 28, House Republicans held their first hearingin an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden.

It remains to be seen, however, whether or not the inquiry will eventually lead to a full House vote on any articles of impeachment.

Right-wing media pundits were happy to see George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turleybeing featured as a witness, but the Daily Beast's Josh Fiallonotes that House Republicans' "longshot attempt to impeach" Biden "got off to a rocky start" with Turley's testimony.

Turley testified, "I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is something that an inquiry has to establish."

The law professor added, however, "But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden."

*Read the Daily Beast's full report at this link(subscription required).

---

freq bloviate trump indict 8 23

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/what-foxs-jonathan-turley-gets-wrong-about-trumps-legal-issues

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-jonathan-turley-federal-courts-may-intervene-if-trump-wins-presidency-while

---

note cherry pick gop huge on email scams LOTTA PASSIVE IN HIS BLURBS

4182940-bidens-use-of-fake-names-in-email-could-cost-him

last year, at an event at the White House, former president Barack Obamajokingly referred to the current president as “Vice President Biden.” At the time, it was described as the more popular politician “reminding Biden who’s boss.”Yet, this needling carried an added bite, given reports of Obama’s private doubts about Biden’s judgment.

In 2020, Obama had famously warned fellow Democrats, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f— things up.”

Obama is now being asked to bail Biden out from another debacle of his own making, going back to his time in Obama’s administration. Various committees and private groups are seeking more than 5,000 emails from Biden in which he used an array of aliases during the Obama administration.

Under the Presidential Records Act, Obama has 30 days to bar the release of the emails and to help shield his former vice president in a growing corruption scandal over the influence-peddling operation run by Biden’s son, Hunter.

Recently, PASSIVE it was learned that Joe Bidenwent by a variety of code names and false names, including Robin Ware. Robert L. Peters, JRB Ware, Celtic and “The Big Guy.” House investigators believe that may only be a partial list. For many Americans, it is understandably unnerving to learn that their president has more aliases than Anthony Weiner. However, while the number seems unusual, the practice is not unprecedented.

Top officials have used such aliases in the past for emails, including former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. During the Obama administration, the practice was defended by then-White House press secretary Jay Carney, who assured the public that any such emails would still be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and congressional inquiries. He added, “We do not use and should not use private email accounts for work.”

The problem is that there was “work” being discussed on some of these emails, including official foreign travel plans and the CLAIM NO EVIDENCEMore importantly, some emails are relevant to the clients of Biden’s son. Biden has previously lied that he knew nothing of these dealings, but these emails could reveal even more about his knowledge and involvement.

Congress is investigating more than $20 million that was transferred to members of the Biden family from foreign sources through a labyrinth of shell companies and accounts. Even the Washington Post has been forced to admit that the president has lied in the past about aspects of Hunter’s dealings. Devon Archer recently confirmed that Joe Biden’s long-standing denial of any knowledge of their business dealings is “categorically false.” BUT ALSO SAID NO ,INKAGE?

Most reporters now admit that Hunter was clearly engaging in influence-peddling, Washington’s favorite form of corruption. Yet in the face of this growing evidence, Democrats insist that Hunter and his associates were merely selling “the illusion of influence,” not actual access or influence over Joe Biden.

Obviously, these foreign clients believed that they were buying more than an illusion for the millions they spent. One corrupt Ukrainian figure said that Hunter Bidenwas dumber than his dog, but that he paid him anyway for access to his father.

There are indications that these clients did receive more than illusion. For example, Archer described how Burisma executives were worried about the anti-corruption investigation being conducted by Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin. Archer testified that Hunter immediately “called D.C.” in response to the plea. Shokin was later fired at Joe Biden’s demand.

The House Oversight Committee has hit a wall in trying to get material from the Bidens and the administration on these past dealings. It has also learned that the president communicated with this son through alias accounts. That led them to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which has resisted the release of the emails. It has been over a year since a group requested these documents, and the NARA review is expected to take years at this pace — until after the next election.

Both Biden and Obama could easily allow the release of these emails to Congress. After all, the use of aliases has been defended on the basis that these emails are trivial or personal matters. If so, transparency will put all the allegations to rest. If it is not true, it would mean that Biden was using false names to convey important information to third parties, and the question would be why.

In one email from Hunter’s laptop, Biden associate James Gilliar explained the rules to Tony Bobulinski, then a business partner of Hunter. He was not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions. “Don’t mention Joe being involved,” he wrote, “it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.” Instead, they referred to the Big Guy or Celtic.

Likewise, a trusted FBI source [FELON WHO VANISHED?] said that a Ukrainian businessman had said that he paid a bribe to Joe Biden, but noted that they were told to avoid using his name and to transfer the money through a complex series of accounts.

Moreover, the request of Congress followed the discovery that staffers had used Biden’s fake government account, Robert.L.Peters@pci.gov, to send a message about meeting then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko with a cc to Hunter Biden.

Once again, there may be innocent explanations for such emails and the use of the alias. However, given the other evidence of corruption and influence peddling, it seems obvious that the information must be reviewed.

That brings us to the confrontation with NARA. The agency could rely on the PRA statute to enforce the refusal of Biden and Obama to allow Congress to review the evidence. Biden actually is supposed to be consulted twice under the law: as the former vice president and as the current president. Both Joe Bidens are likely to have the same negative reaction to exposing his emails.

However, special access to presidential records is expressly allowed under the PRA “to…Congress” and “to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee…if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available.” A refusal would deny Congress critical evidence into a corruption scandal and also a possible impeachment inquiry.

The added resistance to the review of the emails only adds to an already strong case for an impeachment inquiry. Such an inquiry does not mean that impeachment is inevitable. Rather, there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation into whether the Bidens were selling the illusion or the reality of influence. By acting under its impeachment authority, the power of Congress would be at its apex in forcing these disclosures and finding answers on the alleged corrupt practices.

None of this should be necessary, of course. Biden could remove these obstacles instantly to assure the public that his aliases were innocent, even playful, pseudonyms. “JRB Ware” may be a pun, but it is not necessarily the next “Carlos Danger.” We simply do not know, but there should be no reason why the president would not want to clear the record, particularly in an election year.

Otherwise, the effort to withhold this evidence could itself prove damaging, if material evidence of corruption or false statements are found. As Obama would say, one should never underestimate that prospect when it comes to his former vice president.

:{*:{Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University}:

TAGS BARACK OBAMA CELTIC HUNTER BIDEN JOE BIDEN JRB WARE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN ROBERT L. PETERS

---

~ MUELLER? JACK SMITH

---

SPKR BUR 20 30k$

---

an 7 23 no lnx

Legal scholars dismantle Trump judge’s 'novel' injunction in GOP AGs’ lawsuit against Biden officials

Maya Boddie July 06, 2023

Legal experts are questioning the legitimacy of Louisiana District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty's ruling against President Joe Biden administration officials earlier this week, Reuters reports.

According to American Prospect's Ryan Cooper, Doughty "issued a temporary injunction prohibiting federal agencies — including the FBI, Department of Health and Human Services, the Census Bureau, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and many others — from even talking to social media companies with 'the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.'"

Cooper argues the ruling — which Biden officials are appealing — is a "'conspiracy theory'claiming that Twitter conspired against conservatives before Elon Musk purchased the company and took over as CEO," adding, "The plaintiffs claim they were silenced when pre-Musk Twitter deleted posts expressing opposition to COVID-19 vaccines."

READ MORE: This 'self-pitying' Trump judge’s 'crackpot ruling' shows he 'clearly swallowed' a conspiracy whole: report

Similarly, Reuters reports "Several legal scholars and attorneys said while the lawsuit challenging the administration's communications with social media companies raised real free speech concerns, there was no precedent to support the sweeping preliminary order issued Tuesday by" Doughty "that would sharply limit dozens of government agencies and officials' communications with social media companies."

The news outlet also notes "While the 5th Circuit is considered to be among the most conservative of the federal appeals courts, it has reversed previous orders by Doughty in the case that would have allowed senior administration officials to be questioned."

"Skeptical of the free speech claims," New York University School of Law professor Burt Neuborne said, "I'm not aware of a single communication that conveys a threat or any form of either express or implied statement saying, 'You'd better do this, or else.' This opinion seems to think that when the government talks to you it inevitably is frightening you."

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turleydeemed the Louisiana judge's decision a "very important moment for those of us who have been challenging the different censorship programs and projects by the government."

READ MORE: GOP frustrated as House investigations fail to find dirt on Biden: report

Per Reuters, Turley insisted "the injunction 'will have a difficult time on appeal, because it is such a rare and novel order.'"

Additionally, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Jameel Jaffer, added that the ruling points to "difficult First Amendment questions," despite the fact it "doesn't really offer any principled way of separating legitimate government speech from illegitimate government coercion."

He emphasized Doughty took an "'I-know-it-when-I-see-it' approach, and that his far-reaching solution was much too broad," according to the report.

READ MORE: 'An embarrassment': Jim Jordan’s hearings slammed by legal experts as 'far-right snipe hunt'

Reuters' full report is available at this link (subscription required).

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

The problem for this 'conservative court' is that it’s a 'conservative court' ›

'Losing their mind': AOC affirms Biden’s right to shun abortion pill ruling citing GOP history of 'contempt' ›

'Ethics be damned': Legal experts aghast over bombshell report on Clarence Thomas’ luxury lifestyle ›

Jonathan R. Turley | Commentary :{| The Federalist Society}:

https://fedsoc.org › contributors › jonathan-turley › commentary

Click to play: Justice Scalia on Federalism and Separation of Powers .... On June 11, 2013, the Federalist Society's Executive Branch Review Project held its ...

[PDF]

Justice Scalia on Federalism and the Separation of Powers

https://www.cato.org › articles › justice-scalia-federalism-separation-powers

:{:{}:

Scalia's federalist focus on the importance of separation of powers and federalism ..... Professor Turley:First of all, I'd like to thank the Federalist Society again for ...

...Panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C. The panelists included: Professor John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus at Louisiana State University Law School and a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center; the Honorable Ron DeSantis, U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 6th District; Mr. Roger Pilon, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Cato Institute; the Honorable Luther Strange III, Attorney General, Alabama; Professor Jonathan Turley, The George Washington University Law School; moderated by the Honorable William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

...

second speaker is Professor Jonathan Turley. It’s going to be Tulane day. Professor Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar, who has written extensively on a variety of subjects.15 He began his teaching career at Tulane Law School and then joined the George Washington University faculty in 1990, and in 1998, became the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history.16 In addition to his teaching career, Professor Turley is the Founder and Executive Director of the Project for Older Prisoners.17 He has written more than three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a number of leading law journals, including those of Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, and Northwestern, among others.18 Most recently, he completed a three-part study of the historical and constitutional evolution of the military system.19

Because of his background, he has served as a consultant to Homeland Security on constitutional issues and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate.20 Professor Turley received his undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago and his law degree from Northwestern University, and his first job out of law school was a law clerk on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where yours truly was clerking for a judge that year as well.21 So we go way back. Our next speaker is Luther Strange. He is the Attorney General of Alabama, a high post in government.22 B

...

Professor Turley: First of all, I’d like to thank the Federalist Society again for the honor to speak with you today. It’s a particular honor to appear with my former co-clerk, Judge Pryor. You know, the strongest memory I actually have of him from when we clerked together on the Fifth Circuit is when my judge and his judge sat on the same panel, and there was one case that was just an unbelievably sexy constitutional case. John Minor Wisdom was already senior status, and so my judge technically was the head of the panel. My judge would often defer because he’s a very, very, nice guy, and I spent the week saying, “You’ve got to grab the case. You’re both going to be on the same side. Don’t let Wisdom get the case. Just grab it. Please, for the love of God, please.” So I’m walking with him towards conference, and

...

I happen to believe that words do have meaning in the Constitution, despite my own personal policies and interests. I think there are parts of the Constitution that have static meaning. They must have static meaning. There are others that might be a little more fluid, but when it comes to the separation of powers and federalism, those are static concepts that should not change through time. And in that sense, Scalia was the rock that would bring us back to that original meaning. And so Scalia did, in fact, refuse to compromise, because he had principles, and that’s particularly why he will have a legacy. There are many justices that came before him and, I’m afraid, that could follow, that will not be able to make that claim. He was coherent and he was consistent, because he h

Jonathan R. Turley | The Federalist Society

https://fedsoc.org › contributors › jonathan-turley

Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. After a ...

Jonathan R. Turley | Commentary | The Federalist Society

https://fedsoc.org › contributors › jonathan-turley › commentary

Tom A. Coburn, Christopher C. DeMuth, Jonathan R. Turley, Michael .... On June 11, 2013, the Federalist Society's Executive Branch Review Project held its First ...

“Very Dangerous and Indeed Incendiary”: Barr Gives ...

https://jonathanturley.org › 2019/11/18 › comment-page-3

Nov 18, 2019 - However, despite my continued respect and long association with Attorney General Barr, I believe that he has been rightfully criticized for his speech at the Federalist Society last Friday. It is… ... Posted by jonathanturley.

Turley To Speak At Plenary Session Of Federalist Society ...

https://jonathanturley.org › 2018/04/17 › turley-to-speak-at-plenary-sessio...

Apr 17, 2018 - I will be speaking this morning at the plenary session of the Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference of the Federalist Society.

https://littlesis.org/person/244879/Jonathan_Turley

meh

---

2016 National Lawyers Convention

The Jurisprudence and Legacy of Justice Scalia

The Mayflower Hotel

1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Speakers:

Floyd Abrams • Samuel A. Alito • John A. Allison • Akhil Reed Amar • John S. Baker • Rachel Barkow • Carlos T. Bea • Stephanos Bibas • Susan G. Braden • Mark Brnovich • Ronald A. Cass • Leonard N. Chanin • Bradford R. Clark • Paul D. Clement • Steven Colloton • Ted Cruz • Ron DeSantis • Frank H. Easterbrook • John C. Eastman • Allison H. Eid • E Elliott • Jennifer Walker Elrod • James W. Ely • Richard A. Epstein • William N. Eskridge • Brian T. Fitzpatrick • Mark Floyd • David F. Forte • Noel J. Francisco • Richard W. Garnett • Deborah A. Garza • Douglas H. Ginsburg • Abbe R. Gluck • Elizabeth Goitein • Henry Goldberg • Phil Gramm • Deepak Gupta • Nikki Haley • Thomas M. Hardiman • Seth Harris • John C. Harrison • Lisa Heinzerling • Arthur D. Hellman • C Hemphill • Roderick M. Hills • Sandra Segal Ikuta • Randel K. Johnson • Edith H. Jones • David J. Kappos • Orin S. Kerr • Raymond Kethledge • Adam Klein • William Kuntz • Paul Larkin • Joan Larsen • Gary Lawson • Adam Laxalt • Nelson Lund • Stephen J. Markman • William P. Marshall • Toni Massaro • Michael W. McConnell • Thomas W. Merrill • Patrick Morrisey • Adam Mossoff • Vincent Phillip Munoz • Victoria Nourse • Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain • Michael O'Shea • Patrick A. Parenteau • Michael Stokes Paulsen • Mark Sheldon Perry • Roger Pilon • Saikrishna B. Prakash • William H. Pryor • Deborah L. Rhode • Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz • Allan Rostron • Bill Samuel • Joshua Sarnoff • Ben Sasse • Eugene Scalia • Kannon K. Shanmugam • Jerry E. Smith • Lawrence Solum • Ilya Somin • Luther Johnson Strange • David R. Stras • Kimberley A. Strassel • Nadine Strossen • Jeffrey S. Sutton • Diane S. Sykes • Clarence Thomas • Jonathan R. Turley • Michael Uhlmann • Stephen I. Vladeck • Eugene Volokh • Richard E. Wiley • Don Willett • Todd Zywicki

---

well, not a denier

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/01/30/trump-again-wrongly-suggests-that-cold-weather-disproves-climate-change/

---

NOTE NY ag ALSO TOLD BENGHAZI BOYS TO POUND SAND

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/12/who-are-rep-lamar-smith-s-expert-witnesses-house-science-committee-exxonknew-subpoenas

in July, the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, Rep. Lamar Smith, issued subpoenas to two state attorneys general who are currently investigating what ExxonMobil knew about climate science, when they knew it, and if the company misled investors.

The attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts both refused to turn over any information or communications about their investigations. Each AG's office argued the Committee had no authority to issue such a request, calling the subpoenas a violation of states' rights under the 10th amendment.

In a response last month, Smith, a Republican from Texas, announced a hearing to “affirm” that his Committee did have the legal authority to issue such subpoenas. The legal issue the September 14 hearing will address is whether a Congressional committee has subpoena power over state attorneys general and non-profit advocacy organizations. The subpoena was called “an unprecedented effort to target ongoing state law enforcement 'investigations or potential prosecutions'” by Leslie Dubeck, an attorney in the Office of the New York State Attorney General.

Smith has called three legal experts to bolster his claim — two with direct ties to the same Exxon-funded groups who have pushed climate science denial and inaction to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Why Would Republican Rep. Lamar Smith Put Aside Principles of Federalism to Protect Exxon?

According to Oil Change International's Dirty Energy Money database, Rep. Smith has taken $24,770 in campaign contributions from Exxon over his career, with $17,500 of that coming in the last five years.

All told, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecret.org database, Rep. Smith has received $684,947 from the oil and gas industry since 1998 — making oil and gas his most generous industry contributor throughout his career.

On top of the subpoenas sent to the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general, Rep. Smith issued subpoenas to eight non-profit advocacy organizations, foundations and a private law firm that have drawn attention to what Exxon knew about climate science and when the company knew it.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which received such a subpoena, offered to meet with the Committee but refused to turn over internal records. Their meeting request was refused.

“From the outset, Chairman Smith has overstepped his authority with this investigation,” said USC President Ken Kimmell. “He has consistently mischaracterized our work in repeated, convoluted attempts to justify his efforts. It is telling that after issuing broad, unilateral subpoenas, he is now holding a hearing to figure out if his actions are legitimate…We will continue to stand firm against this abuse of power and defend our First Amendment rights.”

“However Chairman Smith stacks this hearing with friendly witnesses, it's clear that he's on shaky legal ground,” Kimmell continued.

...

view this map on LittleSis

Who are Chairman Lamar Smith's Hand-Picked Witnesses?

So who are these “friendly witnesses”? All three are law professors. Two currently hold positions at major conservative think tanks that are known recipients of funding from the fossil fuel industry. The other, Jonathan Turley, is a respected law scholar and civil liberties expert with no potential conflicts of interest.

Ronald Rotunda

Ronald Rotunda is a law professor and the Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Chapman University, and is a widely published expert on legal ethics.

In 2000, Rotunda was a visiting legal scholar at the Cato Institute, a think tank co-founded by oil and gas billionaire Charles Koch that is heavily funded by the Koch brothers.

Currently, Rotunda is a Policy Expert at the Heartland Institute, which describes itself as “the marketing arm of the free market movement,” but is most well known for its decades of climate change denial. A vocal critic of renewable energy and a cheerleader for fossil fuels, the Heartland Institute is notoriously secretive about its donors.

But many of the organization's largest known donors are fossil fuel industry companies and organizations with direct ties to the oil and gas industry.

Heartland has received at least $676,500 directly from Exxon since 1998, including $140,000 in grants that were earmarked for climate change work. It has received hundreds of thousands from various branches of the Koch brothers' donor networks, through family foundations and directly from Koch Industries. Heartland has also received more than $17.5 million in anonymous money through Donors Capital Fund and more than $600,000 from Donors Trust including numerous grants with climate related titles.

Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund are dark money organizations that allow donors to give privately, and are known to receive millions from the Koch brothers' various entities.

Rotunda has recently criticized the state AGs for using their unquestionably legal subpoena power to request records from Exxon. Rotunda wrote for the Verdict blog and Heartland Institute's blog, “The marketplace of ideas, not the subpoena power of government, should decide what is true or false.” However, at the September 14 hearing, he is expected to argue for a Congressional subpoena power that critics argue is without precedent.

Elizabeth Price Foley

Elizabeth Price Foley is law professor at the Florida International University College of Law. Foley also serves on the Editorial Board of the Cato Institute's Supreme Court Review. The Cato Institute was co-founded by oil and gas billionaire Charles Koch, and also receives funding from various Koch affiliated organizations, including the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation.

Foley is also a Research Advisory Board member of the James Madison Institute for Public Policy. The James Madison Institute is funded in part by the Donors Capital Fund, a supporting affiliate of Donors Trust for donors of more than $1 million. The Donors funds are advertised as a way for very wealthy conservatives to remain hidden when “funding sensitive or controversial issues,” creating a lack of transparency and accountability.

Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund have been exposed as a “dark money” channel for the Koch brothers to donate to fossil fuel-friendly front groups, through their Knowledge and Progress Fund.

Finally, Foley is listed as an “Expert” at the Federalist Society, an influential conservative group that has published numerous essays and articles claiming the lawsuits against ExxonMobil and related requests for records from denialist groups are a threat to free speech, a “chilling campaign to establish ‘consensus’ through intimidation”, a “witch hunt” and a “fishing expedition.”

In 2015, the Federalist Society received funding directly from ExxonMobil, and received nearly $1 million from Donors Capital Fund in 2010.

In short, Foley currently holds positions at three influential public policy groups funded by oil and gas interests, two of which receive funds directly from ExxonMobil.

Foley also is of counsel to the law firm BakerHostetler and she collaborates with a BakerHostetler partner, David Rivkin, on articles criticizing the Obama Administration. Rivkin, also affiliated with Cato and the Federalist Society, is actively engaged in litigation and advocacy opposing efforts by the Administration to address climate change and toxic pollution. Rivkin is also known to DeSmog readers for his role in launching the Free Speech in Science Project to defend fossil fuel interests and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the ongoing attorneys general investigations.

Full Committee Hearing Scheduled for Wednesday

The Democrats of the House Science Committee, led by ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson, were allowed under committee convention to invite one expert witness. They selected Charles Tiefer, a professor of law at the University of Baltimore, and former Acting General Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Tiefer testified in 2014 that his 15 years litigating for the House has yielded him “more experience than anyone else” with regards to “what kinds of House roles in litigation do or do not get accepted by the courts as legitimate.” Tiefer has bipartisan bonafides—having testified for Republican committee chairs Issa and Sensenbrenner, but has also published a book about the George W. Bush administration's subversion of law in pursuit of conservative causes.

On Wednesday, September 14, all four expert witnesses will testify to the full committee at a 10am hearing. You can watch the hearing here.

A group of legal experts sent a letter to Rep. Smith today arguing that his subpoenas are “invalid and constitutionally impermissible” because they exceed Congressional authority and violate the separation of powers and the fundamental principles of federalism.

Search Results

Web results

Lamar Smith Seeks to Affirm Exxon Climate Subpoenas With ...

https://insideclimatenews.org › news › lamar-smith-calls-science-committee...

2. Aug 31, 2016 - Lamar Smith has announced House Science Committee hearings on ... scheduled to appear at the hearing are Jonathan Turley, a professor of ...

Lamar Smith Hearing Attempts to Bolster Legal Argument for ...

https://insideclimatenews.org › news › lamar-smith-hearing-witnesses-attem...

Sep 14, 2016 - Lamar Smith held a House Science Committee hearing Wednesday with ... to subpoena two state attorneys general investigating ExxonMobil, but a ... has the ability to insist on compliance with its subpoenas," Turley said, ...

Are Subpoenas on Exxon Mobil Inquiries Valid? Experts Say ...

https://www.nytimes.com › 2016/09/15 › science › are-subpoenas-on-exxo...

Sep 15, 2016 - Lamar S. Smith, a Republican of Texas and chairman of the House ... The first witness, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University law ...

Lamar Smith Holds Hearing to Justify the ExxonMobil Climate ...

https://www.houstonpress.com › news › lamar-smith-holds-hearing-to-justi...

Sep 15, 2016 - Lamar Smith used a hearing on Wednesday to back up his claim that he's ... Turley told the committee he could see this effort by the state AGs ...

A 'Red Scare' tactic or standing up for ExxonMobil on climate ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com › business › economy › 2016/09/14

Sep 14, 2016 - Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) ... The witness panel included Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who said that he agreed ...

Lamar Smith to hold hearing over Exxon climate fight | Fuel Fix

https://fuelfix.com › blog › 2016/08/31 › smith-to-hold-hearing-over-exxon...

Aug 31, 2016 - Lamar Smith to hold hearing over Exxon climate fight ... Jonathan Turley, J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The ...

Who Are the Expert Witnesses Hand Picked by Lamar Smith to ...

https://www.desmogblog.com › 2016/09/12 › who-are-rep-lamar-smith-s-e...

Sep 12, 2016 - Lamar Smith Put Aside Principles of Federalism to Protect Exxon? ... The other, Jonathan Turley, is a respected law scholar and civil liberties ...

===

nyt

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/jonathan-turley.html

no lnx

Who Is Jonathan Turley? Republicans’ Lone Expert on Impeachment

A professor at George Washington University Law School, he has represented whistle-blowers, members of Congress and terrorism suspects.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, represented a Democratic-appointed federal judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr., in his impeachment trial before the Senate.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, represented a Democratic-appointed federal judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr., in his impeachment trial before the Senate.Credit...Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

By Eileen Sullivan and Charlie Savage

Dec. 4, 2019

Jonathan Turley is a well-known legal expert, often seen on cable news talking about a range of issues including tort law, espionage, constitutional law and, most recently, impeachment. He is a professor at George Washington University Law School and has represented clients from a variety of backgrounds and political affiliations.

“This is a daunting but not unfamiliar challenge as an academic,” Mr. Turley wrote on Tuesday on his blog about his scheduled appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.

His credentials

A graduate of the University of Chicago and Northwestern’s law school, Mr. Turley joined the staff of George Washington’s law school in 1990, and according to his biography, was the youngest person named to an academic chair in the school’s history. Now 58, he has represented whistle-blowers, judges, members of Congress and terrorism suspects and is a prolific writer and Twitter user and a frequently cited legal expert. The House and Senate regularly turn to him to testify about constitutional issues.

What he brings to the hearing

This is not Mr. Turley’s first impeachment proceeding.

Mr. Turley testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 1998 during the inquiry into President Bill Clinton to give background of the history of impeachment.

“While the Senate can decide not to remove a president in the interests of the nation for a variety of reasons,” he said then, “the House should not falter in maintaining a bright line for presidential conduct.”

Mr. Turley also represented a Democratic-appointed federal judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr., in his impeachment trial before the Senate. In that case, the Senate found Judge Porteous guilty.

Video

TRANSCRIPT

0:00/7:03

How Does the Impeachment Process Work?

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.

“Impeachment by its nature, it’s a political process.” “What people think is going to happen can turn out to be very different from what happens.” “Because it has to do with elected officials holding another elected official to account for their conduct.” When the framers of the Constitution created a process to remove a president from office, they were well … kind of vague. So to understand how it’s going to play out, the past is really our best guide. “I think we’re just all in for a really crazy ride.” Collectively, these New York Times reporters have covered U.S. politics for over 150 years. “I’m also a drummer in a band, so …” They’ve reported on past impeachment inquiries. “Yea, I’m lost in Senate wonderland.” And they say that the three we’ve had so far have been full of twists and turns. “The president of the United States is not guilty as charged.” In short, expect the unexpected. First, the process. Impeachment is technically only the initial stage. “Common misconceptions about impeachment are that impeachment by itself means removal from office. It doesn’t. The impeachment part of the process is only the indictment that sets up a trial.” The Constitution describes offenses that are grounds for removing the president from office as bribery, treason and — “They say high crimes and misdemeanors, which, really, is in the eye of the beholder.” “The framers didn’t give us a guidebook to it. They simply said, that the House had the responsibility for impeachment and the Senate had the responsibility for the trial.”

One of the things missing from the Constitution? How an impeachment inquiry should start. And that has generally been a source of drama. Basically, anything goes. “In fact, in the Andrew Johnson case they voted to impeach him without even having drafted the articles of impeachment.” For Richard Nixon, his case started with several investigations that led to public hearings. That part of the process went on for two years, and yielded revelation after revelation, connecting Nixon to a politically-motivated burglary at D.N.C. headquarters — “… located in the Watergate office building.” — and its subsequent cover-up. “Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?” “I was aware of listening devices. Yes, sir.” “This was a shocker. Everybody in the White House recognized how damaging this could be.” As the House drafted articles of impeachment, Nixon lost the support of his party. “O.K., I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.”

“I was asked to write the farewell piece that ran the morning after Nixon resigned. And this is what I wrote: The central question is how a man who won so much could have lost so much.” So for Nixon, it more or less ended after the investigations. But for Bill Clinton, that phase was just the beginning. “This is the information.” An independent counsel’s investigation into his business dealings unexpectedly turned into a very public inquiry about his personal life. “The idea that a president of the United States was having an affair with a White House intern and then a federal prosecutor was looking at that, it was just extraordinary.” That investigation led to public hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. “When the Starr Report was being delivered to Congress it was a little bit like the O.J. chase, only a political one. There were two black cars. They were being filmed live on CNN. They were heading towards the Capitol. We were watching it and a little bit agog.” Public opinion is key. And the media plays a huge part in the process.

This was definitely true for Clinton. “You know it was just a crazy time. We worked in the Senate press gallery.” “All your colleagues are kind of piled on top of each other.” “We had crummy computers, the fax machine would always break. The printer would always break.” After committee hearings, the House brought formal impeachment charges. “It was very tense. I thought that the Saturday of the impeachment vote in the House was one of the most tense days I’d experienced in Washington.” And it turned out, also, full of surprises. “The day of impeachment arrived, everyone’s making very impassioned speeches about whether Bill Clinton should or should not be impeached and Livingston rises to give an argument for the House Republicans. He started to talk about how Clinton could resign.” “You, sir, may resign your post.” “And all of a sudden people start booing and saying, ‘Resign, resign’!” “So I must set the example.” “He announced he was resigning because he had had extramarital affairs and challenged President Clinton to do the only honorable thing, in his view —” “I hope President Clinton will follow.” “— to resign as well, so there was all this drama unfolding even in the midst of impeachment.” Then it went to the Senate for trial. The Constitution gets a little more specific about this part. “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to preside over that trial.” “Rehnquist, he showed up in this robe he had made for himself, which had gold stripes on the sleeves because he liked Gilbert and Sullivan.” “The Senate is the actual jury.” “You will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So help you, God.” “This is a copy of the rules of the Senate for handling impeachment. They’re actually very specific.”

“Meet six days a week.” “Convene at noon. The senators have to sit at their desks and remain quiet in their role as jurors. And not talk, which trust me, is going to be a problem for some of the senators who are used to talking all the time.” It’s just like a courtroom trial. There are prosecutors who present the case against the president. “That was perjury.” Only, they’re members of the House, and they’re called managers. Then the senators, or the jurors, vote. And things are still, unpredictable. “The options are guilty or not guilty. But there was one senator —” “Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania.” “Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proved.” “— which is not a thing.” “And everybody just looks, you know, how do you even record that vote?” In the end, there were not enough votes to oust Clinton. “What’s amazing about this whole thing to me wasn’t so much the constitutional process. It was that it felt to me like the beginning of really intense partisanship, the weaponization of partisanship.” And here’s the thing: An impeachment charge has never gotten the two-thirds majority it needs in the Senate to actually oust a president from office. “So you could end up having a situation where the president is impeached, acquitted and runs for re-election and wins re-election.” And that would be a first. “This is my ticket to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. I don’t think you’ll find these on StubHub.”

Video player loading

Explosive testimony. News media frenzies. A trial in the Senate. Here is how impeachment works — and how it has played out in the past.CreditCredit...Photo illustration by Aaron Byrd

Is he partisan?

Besides being invited by Republicans to testify, Mr. Turley has been critical of some comments by Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who has until now taken the lead of the impeachment inquiry. But he has also offered advice to Democrats on how to proceed on impeachment, while sounding skeptical of their argument for it.

“I have previously said that abuse of power is impeachable, but it is the most difficult of potential impeachment claims,” he wrote recently. “Once again, impeachment does not require a criminal allegation, but it does require clarity. It also requires a complete and compelling record. This record is neither complete nor compelling on proof of an impeachable offense.

In another recent opinion piece, he wrote, “A real impeachment case can be made, but to make it, they will have to reschedule, reframe and repeat their House investigation.”

His history as a liberal contrarian

Mr. Turley is a civil libertarian and a skeptic of executive power who also has a history of sometimes making arguments that please Republicans and irritate Democrats — while emphasizing that he personally agrees with liberals on policy matters.

More than 20 years ago, he was the subject of a Washington Post profile by Ruth Marcus that focused on how he was arguing that President Bill Clinton had committed impeachable conduct — even though he was a liberal Democrat who voted for Mr. Clinton in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 1996 — appalling his solidly Democratic family.

Mr. Turley was also sharply critical of President George W. Bush, a Republican, for his expansive view of his executive powers on issues like surveillance and torture. But Mr. Turley became an iconoclastic fixture again during the Obama years.

In 2011, he represented two lawmakers at the time — Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, a very liberal Democrat, and Representative Walter B. Jones Jr., a Republican — who sued President Barack Obama for participating in the NATO air war over Libya without congressional authorization. A federal judge dismissed the case.

In 2014, Mr. Turley accused the Obama administration of making “extreme” claims of executive privilege in an attempt to shield from Congress emails that showed internal deliberations in the Justice Department about how to respond to a congressional request for information about the botched “Fast and Furious” gun trafficking investigation.

He also became an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama’s increasing use of executive actions to try to achieve policy goals that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was blocking.

“I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left,” Mr. Turley told Fox News viewers in 2014. “I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.”

Later that year, House Republicans hired Mr. Turley for a lawsuit challenging how the Obama administration was carrying out the Affordable Care Act, including a dispute over whether certain cost-sharing payments to insurers were lawful. A federal judge eventually ruled that Congress had not authorized those payments.

In 2015, Mr. Turley testified at the confirmation hearing of Mr. Obama’s second attorney general, Loretta E. Lynch, and largely used his testimony to criticize the record of her predecessor, Eric H. Holder Jr.

A skeptic of Trump’s critics

In the Trump era, Mr. Turley has continued to stand apart from the usual partisan alignment of law professors who let it be known that they have liberal policy views.

In 2017, for example, he testified at the confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court nominee Neil M. Gorsuch, saying: “There could not be a better time for the addition of a justice who has a deep understanding and fealty to the original design of our government. I believe that Judge Gorsuch is such a nominee.”

Earlier this year, Mr. Turley wrote an opinion column in The Hill about President Trump’s decision to invoke emergency powers to spend more on a border wall with Mexico than Congress was willing to appropriate.

Following a pattern, Mr. Turley aligned himself with liberals who thought Mr. Trump’s move was wrong — but used that peg to redirect blame onto Democrats, who he said had failed to defend congressional spending powers when Mr. Obama was president.

“I do not agree there is a national emergency on the southern border, but I do believe President Trump will prevail,” he wrote.

Mr. Turley has also often defended the actions of Attorney General William P. Barr, a longtime friend, against criticism from Democrats.

In January, Mr. Turley testified in favor of confirming Mr. Barr and promoted him in the news media, such as when he told NPR that Mr. Barr was “really the perfect person at this time to take over the Justice Department” as someone with a record of integrity “who could bring real stability to that department.”

In an opinion piece in The Hill in October, Mr. Turley defended Mr. Barr’s decision to assign a United States attorney, John H. Durham, to scrutinize the origins of the F.B.I.’s Trump-Russia investigation, and to push foreign governments to provide information for that inquiry. Mr. Turley wrote that such an investigation was warranted, citing “disturbing” questions.

“I supported the appointment of a special counsel after President Trump fired F.B.I. Director James Comey,” he wrote. “I also supported an investigation into the origins of the F.B.I. investigation. The country is divided on the merits of both, with legitimate concerns raised on each side. With the start of a House impeachment inquiry, it is more important than ever to have transparency along with a review of both these investigations.”

Notable fact

On his website, Mr. Turley says that he is the second-most cited law professor in the country and for the last five years, he has been named one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world.

Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump ...

https://thehill.com › opinion › judiciary › 473171-turley-democrats-offeri...

1 day ago - The most dangerous place for an academic is often between the House and the impeachment of an American president. I knew that going into ...

===

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

jonathan Turley (born May 6, 1961) is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is a professor at the George Washington University Law School. He frequently is called on by congressional committees to testify regarding constitutional and statutory issues. Most notably he has testified to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the impeachment of U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.^[1][2]

Education and personal life

Turley was born in Chicago, Illinois. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago in 1983 and his Juris Doctor degree from Northwestern University School of Law in 1987.^[3] He married his wife, Leslie, on New Year's Eve in 1997.^[4]

He served as a House leadership page in 1977 and 1978 under the sponsorship of Illinois Democrat Sidney Yates.^[5] In 2008 he was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School in recognition of his career as an advocate of civil liberties and constitutional rights.^[6]

Turley lives in Washington, D.C., with his wife and four children. He owns a Goldendoodle.^[7]

Career

Turley holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. He is the youngest person to receive an academic chair in the school's history. He runs the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS),^[8][9] the Environmental Law Clinic, and the Environmental Legislation Project.^[3]

Prior to joining the George Washington University, he was on the faculty of Tulane University Law School.^[3]

Since the 1990s, he has been the legal analyst for NBC News and CBS News covering stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections.^[3] He is on the board of contributors of USA Today.^[19] He is also a columnist with the Hill newspaper ^[20] He is currently legal analyst for CBS News and the BBC.^[21]His articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications; as of 2012, Turley has had articles published in newspapers such as The New York Times,^[10] The Washington Post,^[11] USA Today,^[12] the Los Angeles Times,^[8] and the Wall Street Journal.^[13] He frequently appears in the national media as a commentator on a multitude of subjects^[14][15] ranging from the 2000 U.S. presidential election controversy to the Terri Schiavo case in 2005.^[16] He is often a guest on Sunday talk shows,^[14] with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox News Sunday. He served as a contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann from 2003 until 2011, and later on Current TV^[17] in 2011 and early 2012; Turley also appears occasionally on Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now!.^[18]

He said "France has turned into one of the worldwide threats to free speech" ^[22]

Politics

What Turley has called his "socially liberal agenda"^[12] has led liberal and progressive thinkers to consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,^[14][23] civil rights,^[11][24] and the illegality of torture.^[25][26][27] Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian."^[28]

In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.^[29]

In USA Today in October 2004, he famously argued for the legalization of polygamy,^[30] provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.^[31][32]

Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, he contends, does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, "It's something that no one thought—certainly I didn't think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us."^[27]

He is a critic of special treatment for the church in law, asking why there are laws that "expressly exempt faith-based actions that result in harm."^[33]

Turley disagrees with the theory that dealing with bullies is just a part of growing up, claiming that they are "no more a natural part of learning than is parental abuse a natural part of growing up" and believes that "litigation could succeed in forcing schools to take bullying more seriously".^[34]

He has written extensively about the injustice of the death penalty, noting, "Human error remains a principal cause of botched executions. ... eventually society will be forced to deal directly with a fundamental moral question: Has death itself become the intolerable element of the death penalty?"^[35]

He worries that the Supreme Court is injecting itself into partisan politics.^[36] He has frequently expressed the view that recent nominees to the court hold extreme views.^[37][38]

Turley has said, "It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right."^[12] Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.^[39]

In another commentary, Turley defended Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution: "It's very thoughtful—not a screed. I don't see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudson's personal beliefs. ... Anybody who's dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion."^[28]

Turley described U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in an op-ed as President Barack Obama's sin-eater, writing:

For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the "kill list" policy. Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was Holder who personally approved the equally abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen's e-mail and phone records in another story involving leaked classified information. In the 2010 application for a secret warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even investigated Rosen's parents' telephone number, and Holder was there to justify every attack on the news media.^[40]

In a December 2013 congressional hearing, responding to a question from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) about the danger posed by President Barack Obama's apparent unilateral modification of laws passed by Congress, Turley said:

The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch. This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is [sic] two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.^[41]

On November 21, 2014, Turley agreed to represent House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican Party in a suit filed against the Obama administration alleging unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual mandate.^[42]

On October 11, 2016,Libertarian Party candidate for President, Gary Johnson, announced that if elected Turleywould be one of his two top choices for the Supreme Court seat that remained open following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.^[43]

In a 2017 column for The Hill, Turley was critical of military intervention in the Middle East and questioned its constitutionality. He also mentioned that he supported the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.^[44]

Testimony before Congress

The conceptual thread running through many of the issues taken on by Turley is that they involve claims of executive privilege. For example, he said, "the president's claim of executive authority based on Article II would put our system on a slippery slope."^[45] He has argued against national security exceptions to fundamental constitutional rights.^[37][46]

He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues.^[47][48] as well as tort reform legislation.^[3]

Turley has testified regularly during national controversies. He testified at the confirmation hearings of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch,^[49] Attorney General Loretta Lynch,^[50] and Attorney General William Barr.^[51] He also testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings.^[2]

Turley has also testified in Congress against President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program and was lead counsel in a case challenging it. In regard to warrantless wiretaps he noted that, "Judge Anna Diggs Taylor chastised the government for a flagrant abuse of the Constitution and, in a direct message to the president, observed that there are no hereditary kings in America."^[52]

When Congressional Democrats asked the justice department to investigate the CIA's destruction of terrorist interrogation tapes Turley said, "these are very serious allegations, that raise as many as six identifiable crimes ranging from contempt of Congress, to contempt of Justice, to perjury, to false statements."^[53]

In October 2006, in an interview by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, he expressed strong disapproval of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.^[27]

When the U. S. Senate was about to vote on Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general, Turley said, "The attorney general nominee's evasive remarks on 'water-boarding' should disqualify him from the job."^[26] On the treatment of terrorism suspect José Padilla, Turley says, "The treatment of Padilla ranks as one of the most serious abuses after 9/11 ... This is a case that would have shocked the Framers. This is precisely what many of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when they tried to create a system of checks and balances." Turley considers the case of great import on the grounds that "Padilla's treatment by the military could happen to others."^[24]

Turley, in his capacity as a constitutional scholar,^[54] testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.^[39][55] He was extensively quoted by congressman James Rogan during the impeachment of Bill Clinton.^[56]

:{:{:{On December 4, 2019, Turley testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.^[1]}::{}:

It was observed that the bases he expressed regarding his prior position that President Bill Clinton should be impeached diametrically contradicted the opinions he shared regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump, twenty one years later. Those 2019 reports contrasted his extensive quotes from the separate processes.^[57][58][59]}:}:

Awards

In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute^[3] and The Week magazine.^[60]

He was ranked among the nation's top 500 lawyers in 2008.^[61] Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country as well as being ranked as one of the top ten military lawyers.^[3]

In 2008 his blog was ranked as the top law professor blog and legal theory blog by the American Bar Association Journal's survey of the top 100 blogs.^[62][63] His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.^[21] He has received other awards including the James Madison award and was declared one of four university fellows at the Utah Valley University in 2019.^[21]

Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited "public intellectuals" in a 2001 study by Judge Richard Posner.^[64]

Prominent cases

In addition to maintaining a widely read blog,^[65] Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades—representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients in national security, environmental, constitutional, and other types of cases. His past cases as lead counsel have secured decisions striking down both a federal and a state law ^[21]. Among them:

Lead counsel in United States House of Representatives v. Price, the 2014 constitutional challenge of President Obama's changes to the Affordable Care Act.
Lead counsel in Brown v. Buhman, for the Brown family from the TLC reality series Sister Wives, in their challenge of Utah's criminalization of polygamy.
Lead counsel for five former United States Attorneys General in litigation during the Clinton Impeachment in federal court.
Lead counsel to 'Five Wives Vodka" in successful challenge of ban on sales in Idaho due to a finding that the product was insulting to Mormons.
Lead counsel representing Dr. Sami Al-Arian in securing this release for civil contempt and later in defense of criminal contempt charges (which were dropped after years of litigation).
Larry Hanauer, a House Intelligence Committee staff member falsely accused of leaking classified information to The New York Times.^[66]
David Faulk, a whistleblower who revealed abuses at NSA's Fort Gordon surveillance programs.^[67]
Dr. Eric Foretich,^[48] in overturning the Elizabeth Morgan Act in 2003.^[68]
Former:{Judge Thomas Porteous's impeachment trial defense.^[47] Turley characterized Porteus' chronic bribe-taking as merely being a "moocher." Convicted on four articles of impeachment, removed as judge by a Senate vote of 94-2.^[69][70]}:
Defendants in terrorism cases, including Ali al-Tamimi (the alleged head of the Virginia Jihad/Paintball conspiracy)-^[71]
Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada.^[72][73]
Lead counsel in the litigation over the mass arrests at the World Bank/IMF protests in Washington.^[74]
Turley represented the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado.^[75]
Turley testified on December 4, 2019, regarding the impeachment inqiry of President Donald Trump, regarding constitutional issues

References

^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^"GOP witness to say Trump impeachment would set a 'dangerous precedent'". TheHill. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^"Clinton Impeachment Testimony: House Judiciary Committee". JONATHAN TURLEY. August 20, 2007. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^c^ ^d^ ^e^ ^f^ ^g^ ^"Jonathan Turley | GW Law | The George Washington University". www.law.gwu.edu. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
Turley, Jonathan (December 31, 2013). "Happy New Year's Eve!!!". Jonathan Turley. Retrieved October 29, 2016.
A Farewell To Sid Yates, Chicago Tribune, October 10, 2000
The John Marshall Law School ArchivedSeptember 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, January 20, 2008
McLaughlin, Kelly. "A Republican legal expert says even his goldendoodle Luna is mad about impeachment, so we shouldn't pursue it". Business Insider. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^Release Elderly Inmates, by Jonathan Turley, Los Angeles Times, October 7, 2006
"George Washington University Law School, The Project for Older Prisoners". Archived from the original on April 14, 2011. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
Get Congress Out of the Page Business, by Jonathan Turley, The New York Times, October 4, 2006
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^The Free World Bars Free Speech, by Jonathan Turley, The Washington Post, April 12, 2009
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^c^ Turley, Jonathan (October 4, 2007). "A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all". USA Today. Gannett Company. p. A 11. Archived from the original on September 7, 2012. Retrieved September 6, 2012.
Perjury Isn't a Political Decision, by Jonathan Turley, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1998
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^c^ ^Jonathan Turley Takes His Case to TV, The Washington Post, July 30, 1998
Jonathan Turley at MSNBC Jonathan Turley at MSNBC
Temptation tops the Constitution, USA Today, March 22, 2005
At New Network, Olbermann Sets Sights on MSNBC, The New York Times, June 19, 2011
Is Bush Administration’s Bank Spy Program One Part of a Resurgent Total Information Awareness?, Democracy Now!, June 27, 2006
USA Today's* Board of Contributors, *USA Today, March 22, 2011
"Jonathan Turley". TheHill. Retrieved May 7,2019.
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^c^ ^d^ "Bio"^.JONATHAN TURLEY. August 18, 2007. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
Tan, Anjelica (July 6, 2019). "France has turned into one of the worldwide threats to free speech". TheHill.
Jonathan Turley, A Guide to Citizen Law Enforcement: Fighting Environmental Crime at Facilities of the U.S. Department of Energy and Defense, published by Santa Barbara Project for Participatory Democracy, 1996
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^In Padilla interrogation, no checks or balances, Christian Science Monitor, September 4, 2007
9/11 Detainees in New Jersey Say They Were Abused With Dogs, The New York Times, April 3, 2006
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ Mukasey^'s confirmation: a vote about torture, Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2007
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^c^ ^National yawn as our rights evaporate, New law redefines habeas corpus law professor explains, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, October 17, 2006
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ Health^-law judge's prosecutor past, by Josh Gerstein, Politico, December 13, 2010
Rachel Maddow Show: Jonathan Turley on War Crimes, Video, January 10, 2009
"Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy". USA Today. Published: October 3, 2004.
"Polygamy vs. Democracy". The Weekly Standard. Published: June 5, 2006.
"The Floodgates Open: USA Today Promotes Polygamy".
When a child dies, faith is no defense. Why do courts give believers a pass?, The Washington Post, November 16, 2009
"Bullying's Day in Court", USA Today, July 15, 2008
The Punishment Fits the Times ArchivedSeptember 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine", USA Today, January 16, 2008.
Scalia to Talk About Constitution to House Members, Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2011
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ "^{Troubling Times, a Troubling Nominee}", USA Today, January 9, 2006
"The Roberts Court: Seeing Is Believing", USA Today, July 5, 2006
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ "^{House Takes Up Impeachment Task With Time Short}", The Washington Post, November 15, 1998
Turley, Jonathan. "Fire Eric Holder",USA Today, May 29, 2013
Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid", Real Clear Politics, December 5, 2013
CNN, By Deirdre Walsh and Dana Bash. "Boehner: House GOP files Obamacare suit - CNNPolitics". CNN. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
"Gary Johnson Announces His Top 2 SCOTUS Picks". The Libertarian Republic. October 12, 2016. Retrieved October 13, 2016.
Tan, Anjelica (March 29, 2017). "Is America's military effort in the Middle East constitutional?". TheHill. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
Legal scholars split on wiretaps, The Washington Times, January 17, 2006
Can Congress stop the war?, USA Today, January 17, 2007
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^Senate takes up impeachment of Louisiana judge, The Washington Times, December 7, 2010
^ ^Jump up to:^a ^b^ ^Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties Archived October 20, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, The Future of Freedom Foundation, June 6, 2008
"TURLEY TESTIFIES IN SENATE GORSUCH CONFIRMATION HEARING". JONATHAN TURLEY. March 23, 2017. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
"Turley Testimony In Senate Confirmation Hearing Of Loretta Lynch". JONATHAN TURLEY. January 29, 2015. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
"TURLEY TESTIFIES IN BARR CONFIRMATION HEARING". JONATHAN TURLEY. January 16, 2019. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
NSA ruling much like a pig in parlor, Chicago Tribune, August 20, 2006
CIA, US Justice Dept. to Investigate Destruction of Interrogation Tapes, Voice of America News, December 8, 2007
The Worst Congress Ever, Rolling Stone, October 17, 2006
Clinton Impeachment Testimony House Judiciary Committee, August 20, 2007
The Impeachment Hearings, Debate on Article IV, Federal News Service, December 12, 1998
The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony, Business Insider, Sonam Sheth,December 4, 2019. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
Jonathan Turley Is Exhibit A That the Clinton Debacle Never Really Ended, Esquire, Charles Pierce, December 4, 2019. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
Trump impeachment hearings: Legal scholars' testimony in both Trump, Clinton cases stress 'Abuse of power', Newsweek, James Crowley, December 4, 2019. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
History of the Opinion Awards, The Week Magazine, April 14, 2010
The Lawdragon 500 for 2008 Archived July 22, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, October 16, 2008
The Blawg 100, ABA Journal, December 2, 2008
The Turley Blog Leads in Vote on Best Law Professor and Legal Theory Blogs, Jonathan Turley blog, December 27, 2008
Public intellectuals : a study of decline, by Richard A. Posner, Harvard University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-674-00633-X
"JONATHAN TURLEY". JONATHAN TURLEY. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
House Staff Member Cleared in Inquiry on Leak of Iraq Intelligence Estimate, The New York Times, November 22, 2006
Jonathan Turley to Advise NSA Whitsle-blower, Legal Times and The National Law Journal, October 10, 2008
Elizabeth Morgan Act and Legislating Family Values November 20, 2007
"U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session". www.senate.gov.
Michael A. Memoli (December 9, 2010). "Senate convicts Louisiana federal judge in impeachment trial". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 5,2019. The Senate also voted to bar him from ever holding public office in the future... The vote on the first count was unanimous, 96-0. On subsequent counts, the votes were 69-27, 88-8, and 90-6. Impeachment required a vote of two-thirds of the Senate.
Dr. Al-Arian's Lawyers in Virginia, Free Sami Al-Arian website
Lawyer views high court appeal of Area 51 lawsuit a longshot, Las Vegas Sun, August 7, 1998
At last, a glimpse of Area 51, Las Vegas Sun, April 18, 2000
Pershing Park lawyers fees top $2M, The Washington Post, March 4, 2011
Some Flats data public, The Denver Post, May 6, 2008

External links

Categories:

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/gops-legal-expert-insists-clinton-had-to-be-impeached-to-protect-the-existence-of-government-and-prevent-anarchy/

no lnx

GOP’s legal expert insists Clinton had to be impeached to protect the ‘existence of government’ and prevent ‘anarchy’

Jonathan Turley, CSPAN

Written by David Badash / The New Civil Rights Movement December 4, 2019

During Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings Democrats will call three expert witnesses and Republicans will call one. George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley is the constitutional expert chosen by Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) to represent the Republicans’ point of view, to oppose impeachment and to defend President Donald Trump.

Turley has released his 53-page opening statement, which some have already observed is more than twice as long as the combined statements of the Democrats’ three legal experts.

Alex Moe

@AlexNBCNews

Just received the testimony for witnesses testifying at the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry hearing:

Dem witnesses:

Noah Feldman (Harvard) 6 pages

Pamela Karlan (Stanford) 6 pages

Michael Gerhardt (UNC) 10 pages

The GOP witness:

Jonathan Turley (GW) 53 pages

Frolicking Gadfly

@FrolickinGadfly

53 pages of:

"WITCH HUNT!

FAKE NEWS!

DEEP STATE!

SHIFTY ADAM SCHIFF!

IT WAS A PERFECT, BEAUTIFUL CALL."

Embedded video

Turley has released his 53-page opening statement, which some have already observed is more than twice as long as the combined statements of the Democrats’ three legal experts.

In it, he makes this statement that is getting a great deal of attention:

“I get it. You are mad. The President is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad . . . and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad. We are all mad and where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?”

Turley will argue that Trump should not be impeached, despite writing in that same statement: “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

But that same Jonathan Turley had a very different position on impeaching a sitting president when that president was a Democrat. Professor Turley, in a statement written November 9, 1998, declared that impeaching President Bill Clinton was necessary to literally protect the “existence of the government,” and to prevent “contempt for law” and “anarchy.”

Professor Turley literally suggested that were President Clinton not impeached, anarchy would rain down on the nation.

“Allegations of criminal acts in office by a president are perhaps the greatest threat to the perceived legitimacy of a government,” Professor Turley wrote back in 1998. “When there is compelling evidence of criminal acts in the Chief Executive, an entire system of laws is undermined and demands some form corrective action.”

Turley did not stop there. He continued:

In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

His actions are dwarfed by what is charged in both the Mueller report and in the just-released House Intelligence Committee impeachment report, which spans 300 pages.

Professor Turley is getting some appropriate criticism on social media.

Matthew Chapman

@fawfulfan

Jonathan Turley is a bad-faith hack and always has been.

Remember, this "civil libertarian" spent eight years attacking Obama for fairly routine executive orders, and is now defending Trump for trying to commit bribery with military aid appropriated by Congress.What a crock. https://twitter.com/miekeeoyang/status/1202221859581943814 …

Mieke Eoyang

@MiekeEoyang

Turley will argue the record is insufficient in part because "the House has not bothered to subpoena witnesses with direct knowledge."

As the HPSCI report notes, 10 potential witnesses have not appeared in defiance of a duly issued subpoena.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/12/Turley-Testimony.pdf …

View image on Twitter

Brian Beutler

@brianbeutler

Turley argues Trump shouldn't be impeached because the House hasn't heard from witnesses who've refused to testify in concert with Trump's obstruction of the inquiry. This isn't a constitutional argument, it's a roadmap for corrupt presidents to nullify the impeachment power. https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1202207541729595392 …

Katherine Faulders

@KFaulders

On page 50 (yes, 50) of Republican witness Johnathan Turley’s opening statement his conclusion states “this is not how an American president should be impeached” and says even his golden doodle, Luna, is mad.

David Saliba

@salibalaw

Mr. Turley took a very sharp right turn several years ago. Some of his positions are baffling. By his logic, even Nixon should not have been impeached. He was an effective commentator several years back. Now, he seems to be another GOP hack. https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1202207541729595392 …

Katherine Faulders

@KFaulders

http://littlesis.org/person/244879/Jonathan_Turley

stub

professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.

---

https://jonathanturley.org/about/

GUEST POST

ACADEMIA, ENVIRONMENT, INTERNATIONAL, MEDIA, POLITICS, SCIENCE February 18, 2012

# Cyberbullying Scientists: Using Threats in an Effort to Silence the Discussion on Climate Change

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Recently, the Wall Street Journal refused to publish a letter on the subject of climate change that was signed by 255 scientists—all of whom are members of the United States National Academy of Sciences. The WSJ chose instead to publish an opinion piece titled No Need to Panic about Global Warming that was written by 16 “other scientists.” It has been reported that the 16 “other scientists” include engineers, a physician, a retired airplane designer, a retired electrical engineer, and astrophysicists. Also included among the “No Need to Panic” authors are two men—one who questions whether smoking causes cancer (Richard Lindzen) and another who does not believe that asbestos is a health hazard (Claude Allegre).

According to Media Matters, most of the scientists who signed the WSJ op-ed do not publish peer-reviewed papers on climate research. In addition, more than a third of them have links to fossil fuel interests.

Peter Gleick, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur Fellow, wrote an article for Forbes descrying the WSJ’s actions.

Gleick wrote:

*The _Wall Street Journal_’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”

Serious doubt has been cast on the actual expertise on climate science of the signers and on the accuracy of the content, here and elsewhere, and the strawman arguments and technical flaws of their opinion piece are evident to anyone actually versed in the scientific debate. For example, their op-ed has fundamental errors about recent actual temperatures, they use false/strawman arguments that climate scientists are saying climate change “will destroy civilization,” they launch ad hominem attack on particular climate scientists using out-of-context quotes, and so on. Formal responses are in the works, and will be available from a variety of groups in the next day or so. Just as an example, as [pointed out here previously, and at the Union of Concerned Scientists: the authors claim there has been a “lack of warming” for 10 years. The reality? 2011 was the 35^th year in a row in which global temperatures were above the historical average and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.]*}:

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the _Wall Street Journal_ in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the _Wall Street Journal_, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.*}:

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, the letter that was signed by the 255 scientists, spoke of their concern about the recent escalation in assaults on scientists—especially climate scientists. They said that the assaults on both climate science and scientists came from climate change deniers who “are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.” The scientists called “for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

Not long ago, I was disheartened to learn that climate scientists in the United States and in other countries have become victims of cyber-bullying. In 2010, Douglas Fisher wrote an article for Scientific American titled Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned. Fisher spoke of how climate researchers have to purge crude and crass emails that they find in their inboxes every day. Some consider purging such correspondence as a task they must deal with as part of the job of being a climate scientist. Others, however, “see the messages as threats and intimidation—cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse.”

Clive Hamilton, an Australian author and academic said, “The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets, making them reluctant to participate further in the _climate change debate_.” Gavin Schmidt, a scientist who works for NASA, said that “organized, ‘McCarthyite’ tactics aimed at specific scientists by various groups can be stressful.” He added “‘Frivolous’ Freedom of Information Act requests can tie up considerable quantities of researchers’ time.” Schmidt claims that the worst things of all are the “‘intimidating letters’ from congressional members threatening dire consequences to scientists working on climate change.”

Last month, MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel, a Republican and the director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate program, received a “frenzy of hate male” after a video that featured an interview with him was published by Climate Desk.

**********

VIDEO LINK: Not all Republicans are climate deniers (In the run-up to the New Hampshire primary, former Rep. Bob Inglis, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel, and other Republicans talk about why climate action is a conservative value)

**********

Mother Jones reported that the emails contained “veiled threats’ against Emanuel’s wife—as well as other “tangible threats.” Emanuel said, “They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive.” He added, “What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat, so naturally I didn’t feel very good about that at all. I thought it was low to drag somebody’s spouse into arguments like this.”

The Guardian reported last June that Australian climate scientists had been receiving death threats. As a response to the large number of threatening emails and telephone calls, the Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra moved some of its “leading climate scientists to a secure facility…”

Ian Young, ANU’s vice-chancellor, said, “Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time. These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.” Young added that “scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street.”

Canberra Times reported last year that more than 30 researchers in Australia—including ecologists, environmental policy experts, meteorologists, and atmospheric physicists—told the paper that they had been receiving a “stream of abusive emails threatening violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members.” Some of the scientists installed upgraded home security systems and switched to unlisted phone numbers because they were fearful that their homes and cars might be damaged.

One researcher even spoke of “receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change.”

One climate scientist, who did not want to be identified, told ABC News that a dead animal was once left on his doorstep. He said he now travels with bodyguards at times. David Koroly, a professor at the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Science, told ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media. He said, “It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio.”

Addendum:An Excerpt fromCowards in Our Democracy: Part 1, Written by James Hansen, Climatologist and Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

*Today most media, even publicly-supported media, are pressured to balance every climate story with opinions of contrarians, climate change deniers, as if they had equal scientific credibility. Media are dependent on advertising revenue of the fossil fuel industry, and in some cases are owned by people with an interest in continuing business as usual. Fossil fuel profiteers can readily find a few percent of the scientific community to serve as mouthpieces — all scientists practice skepticism, and it is not hard to find some who are out of their area of expertise, who may enjoy being in the public eye, and who are limited in scientific insight and analytic ability.

*Distinguished scientific bodies such as national science academies, using the scientific method, can readily separate charlatans and false interpretations from well-reasoned science. Yet it seems that our governments and the public are not making much use of their authoritative scientific bodies. Why is that?

*I believe that the answer, and the difficulty in communicating science to the public, is related to the corrosive influence of money in politics and to increased corporate influence on the media.

SOURCES

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science (Science Magazine)

WSJ Publishes Op-Ed From 16 Climate Deniers, Refused Letter From 255 Top Scientists (ThinkProgress)

Climate Scientists Rebuke Rupert Murdoch: WSJ Denier Op-Ed Like ‘Dentists Practicing Cardiology’ (ThinkProgress)

The rise of anti-science cyber bullying (ThinkProgress)

MIT Climate Scientist’s Wife Threatened in a “Frenzy of Hate” and Cyberbullying Fomented by Deniers (ThinkProgress)

Price Of Truth: Limbaugh Operatives Encourage Abusive Hate Mail At Female, Evangelical Climate Scientist (ThinkProgress)

Climatologist James Hansen on “Cowards in Our Democracies” (ThinkProgress)

Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 1 (Columbia)

The*Journal*Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery (Media Matters)

Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal (Forbes)

Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned: Researchers must purge e-mail in-boxes daily of threatening correspondence, simply part of the job of being a climate scientist (Scientific American)

MIT Climate Scientist’s Wife Threatened In A “Frenzy of Hate”: Kerry Emanuel’s inbox was flooded with menacing emails after Climate Desk’s video on Republican climate hawks. (Mother Jones)

The Inside Story on Climate Scientists Under Siege: Michael Mann reveals his account of attacks by entrenched interests seeking to undermine his ‘hockey stick’ graph. (Mother Jones)

While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower (Discover Magazine)

WSJ War on Climate Science continues with 16 prominent (but not in climate science) Scientists (Firedoglake)

Australian climate scientists targeted by death threats (Climate Science Watch)

ABC World News: Climate Scientists Claim ‘McCarthy-Like Threats’ (Climate Science Watch)

Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers: ExxonMobil cash supported concerted campaign to undermine case for man-made warming (The Independent)

Australian climate scientists receive death threats: Universities move staff into safer accommodation after a large number of threatening emails and phone calls (The Guardian)

Climate change denial’s new offensive: Global warming is wreaking devastation, but Big Oil won’t give up profits without a planet-destroying fight (Salon)

---

gOP’s legal expert insists Clinton had to be impeached to protect the ‘existence of government’ and prevent ‘anarchy’

David Badash / The New Civil Rights MovementDecember 4, 2019

Turley literally suggested that were President Clinton to not be impeached, anarchy would rain down on the nation.

---

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14092016/lamar-smith-hearing-witnesses-attempt-bolster-argument-subpoenas

Rep. Lamar Smith argued on Wednesday that not only does his House Science committee have the authority to subpoena two state attorneys general investigating ExxonMobil, but a constitutional obligation to ensure that science isn't being undermined by such investigations.

But while the committee hearing was ostensibly to address the constitutional issues of Smith's subpoenas, it served as a showcase for scholarly disagreements and political divides.

Looming over the 2½-hour hearing were the questions of whether the committee was abusing its oversight authority to defend the oil and gas industry—and Exxon—against legitimate probes by New York's Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts' Maura Healey, or whether it was standing up to attempts to suppress dissenting views on climate change.

The genesis of the hearing was the refusal by the two attorneys general to comply with Smith's subpoenas seeking information on their ongoing investigations into whether Exxon misled investors on climate change.

"The documents demanded will allow the committee to assess the breadth and depth of the AG's investigations and inform our understanding of whether their actions have a chilling impact on scientific research and development," Smith said in his opening remarks.

"The question we explore today isn't partisan, it's institutional. Allowing subpoenaed parties to ignore compliance based on the politics of the subject sets a dangerous precedent."

Eddie Bernice Johnson, the ranking Democrat on the committee, called the hearing politically motivated and designed to advance the agenda of the fossil fuel industry.

"The Majority has claimed that their investigation is about protecting the First Amendment rights of ExxonMobil," Johnson said.

"However, the law is clear: fraud is not protected by the First Amendment. If any companies in the oil industry defrauded the public or their shareholders in their well-documented disinformation campaign on global warming, then that is a matter for the state AGs and the courts, not the Committee on Science."

The hearing brought no resolution to the question of the committee's authority and Smith briefly discussed the possibility of going to court to force the AGs' compliance.

Smith called the hearings as part of his escalating hostilities with Schneiderman and Healey.

Smith has charged that their investigations are politically motivated, while absorbing the same criticism for his defense of Exxon, the largest corporation in his home state.

The two attorneys general and eight non-governmental advocacy groups have refused to comply with subpoenas issued by Smith in July. The subpoenas demand documents pertaining to the ongoing investigations and any discussions the agencies have had with the organizations.

Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Schneiderman, called the hearing a "farce."

"No amount of Congressional grandstanding will change the simple fact that the Committee has no lawful basis to interfere with a state law enforcement investigation," he said.

"Attorneys General Schneiderman and Healey have launched a serious fraud investigation into Exxon and will not be intimidated or deterred by Big Oil's friends on Capitol Hill."

Chloe Gotsis, a spokeswoman for Healey, said the hearing did nothing more than add to the unwarranted attack on the Massachusetts investigation.

"This hearing is just another attempt by Congressman Lamar Smith and his colleagues to interfere with our lawful and ongoing investigation into whether ExxonMobil deceived Massachusetts consumers and investors about the impacts of fossil fuels on Exxon's business, assets, and the environment," she said.

To bolster his contention that the subpoenas were legally justified, Smith called three witnesses, including two law professors with connections to think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry and who have been critical of the attorneys general.

The Democratic minority was allowed to call one witness, who once served as the acting general counsel for the House of Representatives.

The first of Smith's witness, Jonathan Turley, a liberal law scholar and professor of public interest law at The George Washington University Law School, opened by saying he was a firm believer in climate change. He also said that did not factor into his view of the subpoenas.

"This committee clearly has the ability to insist on compliance with its subpoenas," Turley said, because the attorneys general have no absolute privilege to shield them.

"Something may be unprecedented is not unconstitutional," Turley said.

Turley agreed with Smith that the state investigations could have a chilling effect on scientific research.

"This was a step too far. It is delving into the area of differences of opinions," he said.

Ronald D. Rotunda, a law professor of at Chapman University's Dale E. Fowler School of Law, also argued that the committee was within its legal bounds to enforce its subpoenas. Rotunda is associated with the Heartland Instituteand a frequent contributor to the organization's policy blog, which often features writings challenging the scientific evidence of man-made climate change.

"The American people have a right to know if Mr. Schneiderman is working on his own, or is he part of a corrupt deal with some of these climate groups," Rotunda said. "People that don't comply with subpoenas have something to hide—that's why they don't comply."

Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor and former acting general counsel for the House of Representatives, argued against the legality of the subpoenas.

"No House committee has ever tried—nor should ever try—to enforce subpoenas against state attorneys general," said Tiefer, the lone witness called by the Democratic minority."The committee has failed to identify even one single House subpoena to a state attorney general in 200 years. The reason? It's never happened."

Remarks and questioning of the witness by the members of the committee revealed a deep philosophical gulf between Republicans and Democrats.

Illinois Democrat Bill Foster lamented that the science committee was wasting its time on the issue.

"We are talking about subpoenas and should be focused instead on assuring that the U.S. remains on the leading edge of scientific discovery," he said.

"It is long past time this committee accepts the facts of climate change and takes on the very of important matter of figuring out where we go to address the biggest challenge of our lifetime."

Mo Brooks, an Alabama Republican, said he wanted to "emphasize something about this quote unquote climate change phrase."

"The so-called climate change debate is about the role humanity has played— if any—in today's version of climate," he said.

It ignores "the cost to humanity in terms of depressed economics of implanting so alleged climate cures."

Shortly before Smith gaveled his hearing to order, a number of Democratic leaders joined with environmental organizations near the Capitol to denounce Smith, to show support for Schneiderman and Healy and urge more state attorneys generals to open investigations of Exxon.

Among those were Rep. Ted Lieu and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who have been pressing for investigations of Exxon by the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Whitehouse called the tactics being employed by Smith "worrisome" and lambasted the committee's majority as acting as the "agent" of Exxon.

"Exxon is using Rep. Smith as a tool to obstruct the investigations and to obstruct the truth," he said.

The attorneys generals' investigations coincide with the publication of an investigative series of stories in InsideClimate News last year that disclosed Exxon's executives were warned of the possible catastrophe consequences of greenhouse gas emissions in the late 1970s yet engaged in efforts hinder solutions.

In July, the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, Rep. Lamar Smith, issued subpoenas to two state attorneys general who are currently investigating what ExxonMobil knew about climate science, when they knew it, and if the company misled investors.

Smith has called three legal experts to bolster his claim — two with direct ties to the same Exxon-funded groups who have pushed climate science denial and inaction to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Why Would Republican Rep. Lamar Smith Put Aside Principles of Federalism to Protect Exxon?

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which received such a subpoena, offered to meet with the Committee but refused to turn over internal records. Their meeting request was refused.

“However Chairman Smith stacks this hearing with friendly witnesses, it's clear that he's on shaky legal ground,” Kimmell continued....

---

eid bs 2x?

TWO YEARS AFTER STANDING BY AL GORE, NEW YORK AG STILL HAS LITTLE TO SHOW FOR #EXXONKNEW CAMPAIGN

MARCH 29, 2018 | KATIE BROWN AND SPENCER WALRATH

*Last year, EID observed how the infamous AGs United for Clean Power press conference on March 29, 2016, had generated nothing substantive one year later. It is now the two year anniversary, and the situation has not changed: the bluster and media hype is still just bluster and hype. The lack of action is newsworthy, but it’s also hard to report on things that didn’t happen. So we’re just reposting our coverage from last year, with a few small edits.

On March 29, 2016, a coalition of nearly 20 state attorneys general held a press conference to announce a joint campaign to investigate and prosecute ExxonMobil, based on the spurious accusation that the company hid its scientific findings on climate change. The AGs invited former Vice President and climate change activist Al Gore to present the case at the now infamous “AGs United for Clean Power” event held in New York.

One year Two years later, the campaign is in disarray. Internal divisions have forced some of the AGs to focus on other tasks, if not abandon the effort altogether. Emails obtained through freedom of information requests have exposed how the effort was part of a political effort by anti-fossil fuel groups and wealthy foundations. Contrary to repeated claims by the Columbia School of Journalism and InsideClimate News about “editorial independence,” the financial backers of the reports used as an impetus for the investigation recently admitted they got what they paid for.

As the dwindling case stands today, all but two of the original “Green 20” have run for the hills, with only New York’s Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts’ Maura Healey carrying the torch for their wealthy donors and activist allies. Both have been subpoenaed (twice) by the U.S. House Science Committee to answer for their attempts to criminalize dissent on public policy, with which they have refused to comply. Both also await a federal court decision on whether they can proceed with their investigations.

Undeterred, Schneiderman recently tried to revive the failing campaign by revealing former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson had used a secondary email address while serving at the helm of America’s largest oil and natural gas company. The company pointed out a curious component of Schneiderman’s tabloid journalism strategy: the New York Attorney General was aware of the issue as early as last year 2016, because the company had already produced emails containing the email address for his office.

Below is an abridged account of how the #ExxonKnew campaign continued its downward spiral over the past year two years.

It Was Always About Politics

Schneiderman launched his own investigation two three years ago after speaking to representatives of the Rockefeller Family Fund, the leading sponsors of the #ExxonKnew campaign. After getting his marching orders from wealthy liberal donors, Schneiderman began pulling together his team of Democratic AGs with the goal of legitimizing his case.

The other AGs, though they shared Schneiderman’s positions on climate policy, saw through his charade and began planning their hasty exits from his witch-hunt as soon as it began. The Iowa AG’s office called Schneiderman a “wild card” and tried to get out of attending the Al Gore press conference. Ultimately, the Iowa AG’s team decided they would have to “ride it through” before refusing to sign the coalition’s Common Interest Agreement, which spelled out a strategy for refusing to comply with public records request about the campaign.

The Virginia AG’s office, meanwhile, was “nervous” about joining the coalition and asked Schneiderman’s team to “dial that back one notch,” referring to language in the release for the Al Gore press conference. The Delaware AG’s office initially agreed to sign the Common Interest Agreement before suddenly pulling out at the last minute.

Numerous legal experts of all disciplines called out Schneiderman and his allies. Elizabeth Price Foley, a constitutional law professor at Florida International University College of Law, testified with a panel of other legal experts before the U.S. House Science Committee, certain procedures of the investigation “an abuse of prosecutorial power.” Another expert, Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School, the AGs’ “arguments go too far” and “what they have done contravenes academic freedom and free speech.”

Indeed, Schneiderman’s and Healey’s allies even admit their investigation is pure politics. Former Maryland AG Douglas Gansler spoke at a Center for American Progress examining the AG investigation last year two years ago, telling the crowd,

“The idea that AGs are politically motivated is an old one and a real one. Yes, they’re politically motivated in the sense that they are part of the political process; they have to run for office, they have to do what their constituents ask for, the voters that put them in office ask for, and there is no bigger issue that they ought to be thinking about and working on than climate change. And yes, that’s politically motivated. It’s good politics.” (emphasis added)

The “Green 20” have also been harshly criticized by their peers, who noted in a 2016 letter,

“We think this effort by our colleagues to police the global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake… Actions indicating that one side of the climate change debate should fear prosecution chills speech in violation of a formerly bi-partisan First Amendment consensus.” (emphasis added)

In addition to pursuing a partisan “inquisition,” Schneiderman has used his investigation as a fundraising vehicle, citing the case while soliciting donations from billionaire eco-activist Tom Steyer on at least two occasions. Schneiderman’s antics prompted the New York Post to run an editorial titled, “Eric Schneiderman should announce he’s running for governor or quit his politicking.”

A court filing by ExxonMobil released earlier this month last year lays bare the extent to which Schneiderman’s campaign is purely political. Schneiderman broke the New York Supreme Court’s rules by running to the press and filing a complaint in court before attempting to settle a dispute with ExxonMobil outside of court:

“Such an approach does not serve the productive resolution of discovery disputes, but it does serve the NYAG’s well-established preference to litigate his case in the press rather than court.”

Investigating the Investigators

In a twist, one year two years after the Al Gore press conference, it is now the AGs who are being forced to fend off investigations from a federal court and the House Science Committee.

A federal judge in Texas believes believed the AGs may have acted in “bad faith” when pursuing their investigation of Exxon and has issued a broad discovery order to determine whether “bias or prejudgment” influenced the AGs’ investigations. The discovery order has turned the tables on the AGs, allowing ExxonMobil to examine their internal documents which may reveal the extent of their collusion with environmental activist groups.

Tellingly, the judge cited the Al Gore press conference as the basis for his suspicion that the investigations of Exxon are politically motivated. When Healey’s lawyers tried to argue that her case wasn’t political, the judge shot back: “like Al Gore wasn’t frickin’ involved!”

Congress is also investigating the AGs, with the House Science Committee issuing subpoenas to the AGs last July two years ago and again this last February after they refused to comply last year with the original. “Instead of pursuing real threats to America, these attorneys general are going down a path of partisan politics and attacking people who disagree with their conclusions about climate change,” Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL), a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, said when the subpoenas were issued last year two years ago. “These individuals, scientists, and organizations have the right to conduct research, form their own opinions, and voice those opinions.”

Independent groups have also gotten involved, suing some of the AGs to force their compliance with public records laws. The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is in court this week last year with Schneiderman, seeking emails his office exchanged with #ExxonKnew campaigners and funders.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an early target of the AGs’ investigation, has also sued Schneiderman to get access to his documents related to the Exxon investigation. In Last November, a New York state judge ruled in favor of CEI, ordering Schneiderman to turn over the documents. The New York Post called it, “The disclosure that could end Eric Schneiderman’s career.”

Meanwhile, Schneiderman has continuously changed the rationale for his investigation in an endless search for something he can label as “fraud.” After rooting through millions of pages of Exxon’s documents and emails spanning some 40 years, he has yet to find any evidence of fraud. His “bombshell” finding thus far is former CEO Rex Tillerson’s alternate email address – a common practice among CEOs – and hardly the proof of climate fraud Schneiderman has so desperately sought.

One year Two years after the high point in his crusade, Eric Schneiderman finds himself in dire straits. It was a campaign designed to prosecute an oil and natural gas company, but the company he hoped to demonize just saw its former CEO confirmed as U.S. Secretary of State. His friends and allies have abandoned him, and he is being investigated by a federal court and the U.S. Congress.

What a difference a year makes. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

---

turley esq

Review

About the Author

Product details

Why It Matters

What To Know

What People Are Saying

What Happens Next

Jonathan R. Turley | Commentary :{| The Federalist Society}:

Justice Scalia on Federalism and the Separation of Powers

Why Would Republican Rep. Lamar Smith Put Aside Principles of Federalism to Protect Exxon?

Who are Chairman Lamar Smith's Hand-Picked Witnesses?

Ronald Rotunda

Elizabeth Price Foley

Full Committee Hearing Scheduled for Wednesday

Search Results

Web results

https://insideclimatenews.org › news › lamar-smith-calls-science-committee...

2.

Education and personal life

Career

Politics

Testimony before Congress

Awards

Prominent cases

References

External links

TWO YEARS AFTER STANDING BY AL GORE, NEW YORK AG STILL HAS LITTLE TO SHOW FOR #EXXONKNEW CAMPAIGN

MARCH 29, 2018 | KATIE BROWN AND SPENCER WALRATH

Attachments