Jonathan Turley - News and Comments

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
How would that work? State legislatures in targeted states would need to authorize their governors to form a reciprocity league, with a clause akin to that Article 5 deterrent in the NATO charter. If California targets Georgia, for instance, Georgia can impose a similar boycott on California. California has an advantage with its much larger economy, Turley argues, which means that Newsom and Sacramento can pass these policies with impunity.

What happens, however, when fifteen states immediately impose similar boycotts on California? Newsom’s economic impunity gets seriously challenged, if not evaporates wholly. And it might be more than fifteen states that would join such an alliance, too. After the 2020 election, Republicans had full control of 23 states while Democrats only had full control of 15. Democrats lost Virginia last year as a result of Glenn Youngkin’s victory in the 2021 gubernatorial election. Given that Florida and Texas would likely sign onto such an alliance — along with their respective and robust economies — boycott actions might lose some of their gloss, if not their current risk-free posturing.

Frankly, I’d just prefer that incompetent pols like Newsom stop posturing and mind their own state’s business — especially in a state as much in crisis as California. Newsom’s tossing out boycott threats to distract people from his own record of abject failure in the Golden State, and that of his party. If a red-state “NATO-like” alliance expedites that process, great. But it would be lovely to return to a time when governors remembered that they don’t dictate policy in states other than their own, nor should they.


 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Prayers for Jonathan Turley After His Definitive Takedown of Hillary’s Latest ‘but My Emails’ Defense



But Hillary Clinton’s suggestion of a “Clinton Standard” caught the attention of Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley, who wrote perhaps what is the definitive takedown of her latest “but my emails” defense and pointed out that there is indeed a “Clinton Standard,” but that it’s not the one she wants people to think it is:


A 2018 Department of Justice inspector general report revealed “81 email chains containing approximately 193 individual emails” were “classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time.” Clinton is echoing her allies’ recent spin that there were only three documents with classification markings among 33,000 emails. It is utter nonsense.
[…]
Nevertheless, the emails had classified information, including top-secret information tied to “Special Access Programs.” Yet some allies emphasize the inspector general also noted that in some cases there was “conscious effort to avoid sending classified information, by writing around the most sensitive material.” It failed. The emails still contained classified information.
That’s why she was reckless to use her own server: Such mistakes on private servers are more vulnerable to capture by foreign intelligence services. Indeed, according to the FBI, “hostile actors gained access” to some of the information through the emails of Clinton’s associates and aides.

As to her claims about Comey “admitting” he was wrong:

It’s not clear what Hillary is referencing here. But Comey never said there was no classified information in her emails — he said the opposite. He condemned her handling of the classified material while saying it didn’t warrant prosecution.
Comey did backtrack later, but not on this point. He said his “mistake” was in how he described her conduct: “I should’ve worked harder to find a way to convey that it’s more than just the ordinary mistake, but it’s not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that.”

And on the “Clinton Standard” – it’s a double standard, as we all know, and which Turley emphasized in his write-up.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Jonathan Turley: Biden campaign got the media to buy into the Hunter laptop 'illusion'



"The media immediately said, we're not going to report on this. Even before the letter came out, they were resisting it," Turley said on Fox New's "Brian Kilmeade Show".

"Yet when they get this unsupported letter, they just immediately replicate it. They don't ask. They don't press on where it came from, who was behind it," he continued.

Turley was referring to a letter that was signed by dozens of former intelligence officials that falsely claimed the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop were Russian disinformation.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member






So did locating an e-mail server in a Chappaqua bathroom. But I’m getting ahead of myself …

You can find the indictment here, although not in a form that can be easily copied and pasted. As Turley says, Smith and his team packed a significant amount of detail in the allegations. The biggest problem that presents itself in the allegations is Trump’s own statements.

As CNN reported this morning and I included in my earlier post, Trump exposed classified data to uncleared individuals while commenting on the fact that the material involved was still classified. In this exchange on pages 15-16 of the indictment, Trump is showing a war plan for an attack on an unnamed country (reportedly Iran) to a publisher, a writer, and a Trump staffer — none of whom were cleared for that kind of material whether classified or not. And Trump comments at the time that he never got around to declassifying it anyway:

trump-indict-1-599x730.jpg


trump-indict-2-674x730.jpg


On top of that, it’s difficult to believe that this material should have been declassified. We don’t declassify our war plans against other countries, and we shouldn’t even discuss the fact that they exist outside of need-to-know military and command circles. Even if it was officially declassified — which Trump denies doing in this exchange — those documents would obviously be incredibly sensitive and exposing them in this manner might still be indictable. Despite common assumptions, 18 USC 793 does not require that material be classified to indict someone for mishandling it. The word “classified” doesn’t appear in the statute at all.



 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

FBI director treated public like 'chumps' with 'maddening' House testimony, Jonathan Turley says



Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley called on Republicans in Congress to get more aggressive on investigating the FBI Thursday after Director Christopher Wray's "maddening" testimony to the House Judiciary Committee. Turley told "Fox & Friends" it's time for lawmakers to "ramp it up" in response to the director's "obviously false" answers on censorship during Wednesday's hearing.

JONATHAN TURLEY: It was a false appearance of contrition and substance from the director. You know, he only apologized for things that are violations that have already been found by courts and Congress, by the way, against the best efforts of the FBI. And so for things that are already established, he went ahead and said, well, we'll never do that again. But in terms of the violations that we've already laid out, in terms of censorship, FISA violations with the secret court, those are already laid out in the public record. He just refused to comment. Sometimes he said that he didn't have any recollection and it was a maddening experience… Congress has to make a decision here. You know, they just went through an entire hearing where they were given nothing. He was far more detailed when Eric Swalwell asked him about the FBI family day. With that he just held forth at length. But when he's asked about censorship, he gives answers that seem rather obviously false. You know, he said that the FBI focused on foreign disinformation. That's just not true. I mean, we have the emails. I mean, at some point you're treating the public like chumps.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Turley Explains How Dem ‘Tripped The Wire’ On Joe Biden In IRS Whistleblower Hearing






On Twitter, Turley said Goldman “just tripped the wire on Joe Biden,” adding, “In trying to grill the whistleblowers to show that there is no evidence that Joe Biden was involved, he elicited an answer that the witnesses established that Joe Biden did discuss business deals of Hunter with the Chinese.”

“Goldman was trying to show that the witnesses did not mention a substantive role of Joe Biden, Shapley immediately noted that it did mean that he came to discuss one of the Hunter’s deals. The President continues to deny that fact,” he added.

“Goldman prompted a sworn statement from the investigator that Biden did indeed discuss his son’s business deals,” Turley said. “In doing so, Goldman may have delivered one of the most damaging moments in the hearing for the Bidens.”


After Shapley made his point about Joe Biden talking to his son about business, Goldman went on to state that the IRS agent had “no direct evidence” connecting Joe Biden to Hunter Biden’s business deals before moving on with his questioning.

Turley, in ending his Twitter thread, said if Goldman had continued his line of inquiry about the Biden business deals for a few more minutes, it would have “sealed the case” for the appointment of a special counsel.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Legal experts slam Jack Smith for bringing 'lousy' case against Trump: 'Disinformation indictment'



"The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation — this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.

"It said [Trump] was spreading falsehoods, that [he] was undermining integrity of the election — that is all part of the First Amendment," Turley said. "And I think that courts will look skeptically."

Turley said that one thing that is noticeably absent from the indictment is a charge for "conspiracy for incitement" or "seditious conspiracy."


"Those were the claims the Democrats used in the impeachment and said the evidence was absolutely clear, people like (Rep.) Adam Schiff and others saying [Trump] is clearly guilty of those crimes," Turley explained. "Well, they’re not in here."
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Public trust wanes as AG Merrick Garland misses opportunity for transparency: Jonathan Turley



JONATHAN TURLEY: The problem with this appointment is manifest. You know, Garland had the opportunity to do two things to regain the trust of the public. He could have appointed someone else as special counsel, and he could have expanded the mandate. He could have said, look, there are a lot of concerns about influence peddling crimes associated with the Biden family. We're going to have all of those investigated independently, and the facts will take it where it needs to lead. He didn't do that.

Instead, he kept on referring to the mandate of investigating Hunter Biden, and he appointed the individual who's been criticized for weeks, accused by whistleblowers of being the head of what they suggest was a fixed investigation. Now, that's obviously not going to help the public trust any.


---

The most immediate impact of this appointment will be to insulate the department itself. Weiss was supposed to testify in Congress. That's highly unlikely, if he does, it's unlikely he's going to give any real information. But there is another road here. You know, by not expanding the mandate, Garland may have fueled calls for the impeachment inquiry. You know, impeachment is sort of constitutional kryptonite. You know, no court that I know of would say that Congress does not have a duty to investigate allegations of corruption by President Biden and his family. This does not appear to be within the mandate laid out by the attorney general.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member




From jonathanturley.org:

I recently wrote a column about five facts that justified the start of an impeachment inquiry. While I have stressed that I do not believe that there is currently sufficient evidence for an actual impeachment, I am mystified by the claim that there is not ample evidence to warrant an inquiry into possible impeachable offenses. Notably, CNN just reactivated its fact-checking team for a review of the basis for the inquiry. In so doing, the network made an iron-clad argument in support of the decision by Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
CNN presented this claim:
Claim: Biden family and associates got $20 million through shell companies​
“Bank records show that nearly $20 million in payments were directed to the Biden family members and associates through various shell companies,” McCarthy said.​
Facts First: This is true about Joe Biden’s family and associates, but there is no public evidence to date that the president personally received any money.​
That is a fair fact check but it is also the very reason that Speaker McCarthy initiated the inquiry. We do not know where this money went, why it was sent through this labyrinth of accounts, or what it was intended to buy. That is why this is an impeachment inquiry.








 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Trump Gag Order Is 'Unconstitutional' and 'Dangerous,' Says Prominent Law Professor




"They decided in perhaps an abundance of caution to order this stoppage until they can give it a full review," Mr. Turley said on the program. "The reason I think this could be quite significant is because I think the order is unconstitutional."

The gag order saga was triggered by a request by special counsel Jack Smith and imposed when U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued the order on Oct. 17.

Mr. Turley said that Mr. Smith's request to impose the gag order was "equally unconstitutional" and that even one of President Trump's most vocal critics, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has denounced the gag order.

It has "drawn the criticism of even the ACLU, which is a staunch critic of Donald Trump," Mr. Turley said. "But the ACLU has said, 'Look, this is flagrantly unconstitutional.'"

The gag order was imposed in the election interference case the former president faces in Washington, D.C.

The case is one of a handful President Trump faces—involving a total of 91 felony counts—as he remains the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

President Trump maintains he is innocent of all charges and that the various accusations represent an effort by his political opponents to undercut his chances to win the race for the White House.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
📉 Believe it or not, the Hill ran an op-ed by conservative pundit Jonathan Turley this weekend, headlined “Happy birthday, Adam Smith: The invisible hand just slapped Disney.

image 8.png

In an amusing aside, Jonathan Turley has somehow offended Chat GPT. If you don’t know who Turley is, you aren’t going to get any help from Chat GPT:

image 5.png

Actually, Turley is a constitutional scholar and conservative commenter with an extensive Wikipedia page, who apparently makes ChatGPT fizzle out.

Anyway. Turley’s op-ed opens with Disney’s recently-filed annual SEC financial report. It was a stinker. But what most caught Turley’s eye was the report’s admission that — guess what? — messing about in controversy and politics might be hurting the company’s bottom line. The report wordily acknowledged that:

“We face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products. Consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”


Eureka! The geniuses at Disney discovered the long-lost concept of misalignment with customers. (And what would they do without euphemisms?) But seriously, why on Earth would any allegedly capitalist company set “environmental and social goals” that are misaligned with their customers? If directors know the ESG goals are misaligned with customers, but do them anyways, should shareholders get to sue the directors for sabotaging the company’s share price?



 

herb749

Well-Known Member
📉 Believe it or not, the Hill ran an op-ed by conservative pundit Jonathan Turley this weekend, headlined “Happy birthday, Adam Smith: The invisible hand just slapped Disney.

image 8.png
In an amusing aside, Jonathan Turley has somehow offended Chat GPT. If you don’t know who Turley is, you aren’t going to get any help from Chat GPT:

image 5.png
Actually, Turley is a constitutional scholar and conservative commenter with an extensive Wikipedia page, who apparently makes ChatGPT fizzle out.

Anyway. Turley’s op-ed opens with Disney’s recently-filed annual SEC financial report. It was a stinker. But what most caught Turley’s eye was the report’s admission that — guess what? — messing about in controversy and politics might be hurting the company’s bottom line. The report wordily acknowledged that:



Eureka! The geniuses at Disney discovered the long-lost concept of misalignment with customers. (And what would they do without euphemisms?) But seriously, why on Earth would any allegedly capitalist company set “environmental and social goals” that are misaligned with their customers? If directors know the ESG goals are misaligned with customers, but do them anyways, should shareholders get to sue the directors for sabotaging the company’s share price?





Gotta love these Post & NYTimes stories. Headline of why are voters angry with Biden. Starts out with a few paragraphs of why then reads like a Biden campaign ad.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Gotta love these Post & NYTimes stories. Headline of why are voters angry with Biden. Starts out with a few paragraphs of why then reads like a Biden campaign ad.
Trying to make lemonade from le.... Cowpies.
 

Grumpy

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

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
"For shareholders, it may seem counterintuitive that corporate executives would trade off profits for political or social agendas. However, it does serve as a rationale for individual corporate executives who are professionally advanced when they champion such causes," Turley wrote.

Turley pointed out that Bud Light exec Alissa Heinerscheid famously said the brand needed to drop its frat boy reputation and was "was heralded by colleagues, even though her move went on to tank that brand as a whole."

"In fairness to Disney, there is an expressive element to its products. Movies are artistic creations that emphasize certain motivations and values. At one time, those values included some that are now viewed as offensive, including racist tropes," Turley wrote.

"The question is the balance and degree of the political and social agenda. Disney’s products are now viewed by many conservatives as empty virtue signaling and endless attempts to indoctrinate children," he continued. "Moreover, when the company publicly declares its opposition to a popular parental rights bill in Florida, it is moving away from a commercial to a political focus."

This, according to Turley, is exactly the problem with the invisible hand.





 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Disney Awarded Defense Contract After Producing More Bombs Than Lockheed Martin

 
Top