Jonathan Turley - News and Comments

[herb749]

Turley is a registered Democrat unless he changed parties. I guess if you disagree with leftists, you automatically become a conservative..

Just like disagreeing with Biden makes you a MAGA .

 

[GURPS]

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.

 

[GURPS]

‘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.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

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.

He lost me in the specifics. He talks about democracy being on the ballot but the ballot isn’t very democratic, his own party is trying to strip ballots of Donald Trump’s name to prevent people who want to vote for what appears to be the leading candidate for the presidency from doing that. So when he’s talking about the freedom to vote and have your vote count, his party is actively trying to prevent that and saying, really, you’re not just voting for me, just think you’re voting for democracy. For those people, they really feel like, if we vote for you, do we get democracy back next time? Are we going to have all of the candidates on the ballot? I don’t think that effort will succeed. It’s worth noting when he talks about the freedom of speech, the Biden administration I have written before, is the most anti-free-speech administration since the administration of John Adams. I mean, his administration has carried out what a federal court called an Orwellian censorship program with the help of social media companies.

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.

 

[GURPS]

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.

On Wednesday, I received a letter from Bryan M. Sullivan, a partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, who is the lawyer of Kevin Morris (who is the lawyer for Hunter Biden).

The letter warns that I could face a defamation action if I do not retract (or if I repeat) my criticism of Morris’s representational relationship with Hunter.
Putting the personal invectives aside, Sullivan did offer a couple of details on the possible defense of Morris in a pending ethics complaint brought by a conservative legal group.

Roughly a year ago, I wrote a column discussing how Morris and others reportedly met to plan out a scorched earth strategy to attack and threaten critics. The Washington Post reported that the discussion included targeting or threatening critics with defamation lawsuits.

In his letter, Sullivan attacks my reference to ethics rules as unworthy of a professor as well as “blatantly misleading and just bad lawyering.” That tirade about my lack of knowledge and principles is followed by a demand for an immediate retraction and adds “if you repeat your baseless charges, you understand that accusing someone of violating the law is defamation per se.”

I will not issue a retraction despite the threats of Morris and Sullivan. I did, however, publish another column repeating my objections to Morris’s blurry representational claims.

“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:

 

[GURPS]

Kevin Morris Threatens Jonathan Turley With Defamation Lawsuit, Turley Promptly Humiliates Him​

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.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

‘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.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

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:

JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, the more cases against Trump, the less justice we receive as a people. You know, the opponents of Trump would have been far better off with just one case, the Mar-a-Lago case. That’s based on real law, real precedent, and one can disagree with the interpretations. But it’s not a reach in the sense of this case.
This case is, creating something, it’s creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know, you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired, the statute limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather curious way. He’s effectively arguing that Trump was filing false business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime. But it isn’t a federal crime, this wasn’t a campaign contribution.
None of that appears to matter. And that’s why a lot of us are looking at this and recoiling. This is not how the law is supposed to be. New Yorkers appear to like it this way. They elected James, who ran on bagging Trump for anything, didn’t even mention what. And they now are lionizing this district attorney putting together what many consider to be an absurd indictment…
The problem is that courts don’t feel comfortable asking who did you vote for, and so they are working around the edges to try to show bias. The most important thing here is to try to isolate the worst of the jurors, those are jurors who just desperately want to be on this jury, many people will want to be and are prepared to lie to do so. What the defense counsel has is not their veracity on these forms but their names. Even though we won’t see them, defense counsel can look at social media and see if they are lying.