Just like disagreeing with Biden makes you a MAGA .
Jonathan Turley - News and Comments
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Just like disagreeing with Biden makes you a MAGA .
DOJ's handling of Hunter Biden case is 'inexplicable,' says Turley, as ex-prosecutor faces questioning
FOX News contributor Jonathan Turley told "America’s Newsroom" on Thursday that the "glaring issue" in the Hunter Biden case is how the Department of Justice allowed early potential tax felonies against the first son to expire. The George Washington University law professor questioned why Special Counsel David Weiss, who is investigating Hunter Biden’s possible misconduct, would allow the statute of limitations to run out during an investigation.
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, things are going poorly, I think, for the Biden team. Obviously, this was not a great week. The impeachment inquiry is indeed that — it's an inquiry. It's an effort to confirm these facts. The Democrats voted unanimously to stop further questions, even though half of Americans, according to a recent poll, support the inquiry. Seventy percent of Americans believe the president has acted illegally or unethically. So these questions do have to be answered.
Now, whether they'll be answered by [Lesley] Wolf is a very good question. She may still be operating under instructions from the Department of Justice as to what she can discuss about the handling of this case. The glaring issue remains the fact that the Department of Justice allowed these early felonies to expire. The whistleblowers have said they had a deal on the table that would have allowed that statute of limitations to be extended. For some inexplicable reason, Weiss allowed it to expire. And I've got to tell you, I pride myself on being able to share both sides of a legal issue. I can't imagine the rationale for allowing felonies to expire in the middle of an investigation. Maybe she can, because I can't think of one.
‘Enormous Amount Of Evidence’: Jonathan Turley Says Joe Biden’s Connection To His Son’s ‘Corruption’ Is ‘Impeachable’
Turley pushed back against the argument stating that not only has there been an “enormous amount” of evidence against the president and his family, but that most people agree it is “influence peddling.”
“It’s simply not true. I mean, there’s been an enormous amount of evidence put together by the House committees – millions of dollars that have gone through a labyrinth of different accounts and shell companies to Biden family members,” Turley stated.
“There are Biden associates, who said that what the president has said publicly is nonsense, that he did know about this influence peddling. And most people agree that this is influence peddling. This is corruption.”
Turley continued to state that there is no necessity to “really show” that the money had “directly” gone to Biden for him to be impeached, emphasizing the “standard” in federal cases that have involved bribery and other similar crimes.
“But I have to correct one notion that is being bantered about and that is that you have to really show that money went directly to the president. That’s not the standard that in federal cases involving bribery and other crimes, giving money to a principal’s family members is in fact a benefit under federal law. Otherwise, everyone would just give money to family members and say it’s not a bribe, it’s not impeachable,” Turley stated.
Jonathan Turley Criticizes Biden's 'Anti-Free-Speech Administration'
Turley suggested to Fox News that Biden’s speech was hypocritical by talking about the freedom to vote despite his own party attempting to strip Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot.
During his speech in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Biden said that defending democracy was a “central cause” of his administration. However, Turley pointed out that the Democratic Party has gone to great lengths to suppress the constitutional rights of Americans and their freedom to choose who they want running the country.
Turley said that Biden’s speech conflicted and contradicted his administration's actions regarding Trump.
Speaking of Trump, the former president criticized Biden, accusing him of “fear-mongering” Americans in which Biden claimed the 45th president could not be trusted with a second term.
“Biden, if you take a look at what he’s doing on the border or inflation, or our military, that horrible day in Afghanistan, you look at what he’s done with energy,” Trump, who is the frontrunner for the 2024 election, said. “All throughout the world, we’re an embarrassment as a country. We’ve become an embarrassment as a country.”
According to recent polls, Americans trust Trump on the economy, immigration, and the Israel-Hamas war. Additionally, a Wall Street Journal poll found that just 37 percent of voters approve of Biden’s job as president.
Kevin Morris Threatens Jonathan Turley With Defamation Lawsuit, Turley Promptly Humiliates Him
In a Friday column titled "The Curious Ethical Case of Kevin Morris," Turley not only refused to back down; he again slammed Morris — sometimes referred to as Hunter's "sugar brother" — for his beyond questionable relationship with Joe Biden's son.
“The effort in such threats is to silence or chill critics in their criticism of a wealthy, powerful public figure like Mr. Morris,” Turley wrote in the Friday column. He then highlighted Morris’s recent congressional testimony and his ownership of Hunter’s stake in BHR Partners:
Last edited:
Hunter Biden got over $6.5MILLION in total from his 'sugar brother' Kevin Morris over one million MORE than previously disclosed attorney reveals
- Despite the accelerated timeline of their friendship to Hunter's financial benefit, Morris insists he does not expect anything from the Bidens politically
- The high-profile entertainment lawyer told investigators last week that Hunter is required to begin paying back the total $5 million he owes him next year
Morris' attorney also writes that Hunter is required to pay a 5 percent interest rate on the loans which was 'negotiated' by their 'separate' legal counsels.
Last week, Morris detailed to congressional investigators the chain of events that led to loaning his 'personal friend' - the president's son - millions of dollars only one month after meeting him.
Despite the accelerated timeline of their friendship to Hunter's financial benefit, Morris insists he does not expect anything from the Bidens politically.
Morris subsequently went on to fork over million in loans to Hunter, giving him the nickname of Hunter's 'sugar brother.'
But the high-profile entertainment lawyer told investigators for the House GOP's impeachment inquiry last week that Hunter is required to begin paying back the total $5 million he said owes him next year.
According to a transcript of the interview obtained by DailyMail.com, Morris met Hunter Biden at a swanky Biden fundraiser in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles in November 2019. He was introduced to then-candidate Joe's 'struggling' son by big Biden donor Lanette Phillips.
‘Not Likely to Happen’ – Jonathan Turley Explains Why Letitia James Won’t be Able to Seize Trump’s Assets (VIDEO)
“These properties are partnerships, they have leveraged debt – all of that has to be unraveled. So these aren’t just this, you know, the one-to-one Trump versus James type of equation. So in order to seize that property, she’s going to be pulled into court, there’s going to be challenges. It’s not going to happen overnight. While everyone is celebrating this idea that she’s going to padlock Trump Tower. It’s not likely to happen, and it’s certainly not likely to remain very long.”
Turley continued, “The other thing is that she could be harming the value of the property that she’s trying to seize with some of these actions. I don’t think that matters to her, but it might matter to a court.”
Trump’s legal team has filed an appeal and requested a stay on the massive $464 million judgment.
On Thursday Trump’s attorneys sent a letter to the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court and asserted Letitia James’ actions are “unconstitutional.”
“It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale,’ in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal,” Trump’s attorney Cliff Robert wrote.
Trump’s attorney also said Letitia James’ demand that Trump pay the judgment in full in order to appeal is “unreasonable, unjust, and unconstitutional (under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions) bond condition, which would cause irreparable harm and foreclose any review of Supreme Court’s deeply flawed decision in this case.”
Far-left New York Judge Arthur Engoron on Thursday also ruled Trump must inform a court-appointed monitor *in advance* about his effort to secure appeal bonds in Letitia James’ Soviet-style fraud case with no victim.
Law Prof Jonathan Turley Suggests Trump Can’t Get a Fair Trial in New York
Turley was commenting about the jury selection process and said that even though the court will try to find objective jurors, that Trump haters will lie just to get on the jury.
He pointed out that this has already happened in other cases.
Real Clear Politics provides a partial transcript:
'If Lightning Doesn’t Strike the Courthouse, I Will Be Very Surprised': Turley on Cohen Testifying
In either case, here's what Avenatti has to say about Cohen's adventures in TikToking and spouting off regarding the trial:
Even if we take Avenatti's observations with less than a grain of salt, other respected legal experts have weighed in on Cohen's antics.
And McCarthy is joined in that assessment by George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley, who observed:
That's some dramatic — yet oddly fitting — imagery to invoke. I have visions of "Ghostbusters" meets "And Justice for All," overlaid by the audible "Law and Order" dun-dun swimming through my head now. As strange as this entire episode has been, can we truly rule out the possibility?
Turley: I Think Trump Won The Case, "It Is Going Very Well For The Defense"
"This has been rather otherworldly to sit and watch this," Turley described the trial. "It's like you've entered a parallel universe. How this case is going forward, I just cannot explain. You have a disbarred convicted serial perjurer on the stand matter-of-factly detailing how he stole tens of thousands of dollars from his client. And what is really funny is then the prosecutor gets up and says I want you to tell the jury once again you aren't charged with anything, right? I wanted to stand up and say yeah but you should have. He just admitted that he committed grand larceny. He told you that and you instead decided he was more valuable to pursue a dead misdemeanor on a bookkeeping violation."
"I'm one of those risk-averse defense attorneys," Turley said. "If I think I'm going to win a case, I'm going to stop. I think they've won this case. The problem is this is not an ordinary case. So my view is even if there was a conviction, it would have to be overturned at this point. This is a man running for president."
"Throughout this time, you can feel the building pressure in that courtroom. The one person that didn't seem to register it was the former president..." Turley recalled, adding, "[Trump] didn't show any emotion at all as this mantra of guilty verdicts was read."
"I think that this is one of those things that really embodies the entire Trump era. There were people who clearly were thrilled by the result, and there were people who were saddened by it. I was saddened by it. I disagree with this verdict," Turley reiterated.
"I think, as I said before, that this case was legally unfounded. When they were reading those guilty verdicts, the one thing that we didn't know is really what he was found guilty of. Because if you remember, the judge allowed the jury to find guilt on any one of the three secondary crimes," Turley said. That meant the jury didn't have to determine exactly what crime was committed.
"We weren't told whether the jury found any one of those crimes, whether they found all three of those crimes. I'm not too sure we will know that. That's one of the many issues that I think presents reversible problems in this case," Turley assessed.
Turley To Debate Karpf On ZeroHedge: Free Speech, Musk, And X
Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter in late 2022 caused a media crap storm with calls for imminent bankruptcy, the infamous ADL shakedown, and disinformation alarm bells in the beltway think tank community.
Duking it out two years after the acquisition will be George Washington Professors Jonathan Turley and David Karpf. Each will join moderator Gene Epstein, director of The SoHo Forum, for a 90-minute debate broadcast live to the ZeroHedge homepage.
On the docket will be free speech, censorship, disinformation, and the government’s proper role in all this. The resolution: Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was a net positive for society.
Turley for the affirmative will be making the free speech absolutist’s case in favor of Musk’s management style. The professor has lauded Musk as “the most consequential figure in free speech of our generation”: