Turley to Speak in Utah on the History of Impeachment

Today, I will be speaking to lawyers and law students in Utah on the history of impeachment.  The event is organized by the Utah State Bar litigation section in conjunction with the University of Utah and Brigham Young University law schools. As many of you know, I have a deep love for the parks and trails of Utah as an avid backpacker so having to appear virtually is a disappointment.  However, I hope to be back hiking the ridges of Zion and Bryce this year.

The event advertisement is below:

9 thoughts on “Turley to Speak in Utah on the History of Impeachment”

  1. @b:”Serious question; Is Mr. Turley a FOX employee or does he receive a payment from FOX for his advocacy of conservative commentary?”

    Yes, Turley is an employee of Fox. Unless I am mistaken, and please correct me if I am wrong, he has never- to my recollection- criticized any performers on Fox. I don’t begrudge him criticizing hosts on CNN and MSNBC. But his overlooking similar behavior worthy of criticism on his own network is hypocritical and reprehensible.

    Turley prides himself on condemning Trump’s 1/6 speech as reckless, but he refuses to acknowledge the Big Lie that the election was stolen. Turley would have you believe that the Republicans acted in good faith in challenging the electoral count on 1/6, and defends their efforts by analogizing them to similar complaints by Democrats in previous elections. Tat comparison is bogus. The reason that Turley will not concede that Republicans are lying about massive voter fraud is due to the fact that his employer, Fox, is being sued for defamation by Dominion and Smartmatic for billions of dollars. As a lawyer, he knows that his “client” is being accused of perpetuating these lies by broadcasting these reckless falsehoods by Republicans on their programs. It is obvious that Turley does not want to go on the record on the merits of these defamation cases. His blog is concerned with the First Amendment, and yet he has not uttered a single word on these monumental free speech cases! So he self-censors lest he jeopardize his lucrative employment at Fox. Perhaps, he signed a non-disparagement agreement with Fox so that he is contractually forbidden to criticized Fox or his Fox colleagues. While he does not hide the fact that he has a conflict of interest, he does not advertise the fact that he is beholden to Fox. He only mentions his contract with Fox parenthetically and only when a failure to do so would be unethical. Which explains why you, @b, thought it was only a “rumor” that Turley was receiving remuneration for his contributions.

    As much as Turley may wish to downplay his association with Fox, I am afraid that his professional legacy will be tarnished. While Fox is not as propagandist as OAN or Newsmax, it certainly falls within that bubble. Turley will not be forgiven for pretending that Fox is a respectable news organization by working for it. His reputation undoubtedly will suffer, not as much had he worked for, say, Infowars, but bad enough that he will live to regret it.

    1. “Turley prides himself on condemning Trump’s 1/6 speech as reckless, but he refuses to acknowledge the Big Lie that the election was stolen.”

      That’s one of your larger cut and pastes, Jeffrey.

      It is very amusing how obviously nervous the DNC is about the stolen election. That nervousness is easily discernible through the marching orders it’s delivering through their trolls like you.

      1. Walworths, has Turley even disputed the Big Lie? No, he has not. He will not mention it. Do you deny it? If so, prove me wrong by referring to a blog post in which he discusses it. I’m waiting…,

        1. Is “The Big Lie” the new meme the DNC has instructed trolls like you to call the stolen election, Jeffrey?

          BTW, JT has repeatedly stated here on HIS blog that he personally does not think the election was stolen, and I have called him out on it more than once.

          As to me going through the trouble of providing you proof of that reality. Go do your own work, troll boy.

          Again, if you really are a Jewish guy, you’re the dumbest I’ve ever seen.

          1. Walworths, I accept your compliment on behalf of the Jewish people for their innate intelligence. As to Turley, I concede that he did not add his voice to the false claims of massive election fraud though he has not disavowed his Fox cohorts for championing that Big Lie. Nor has he denounced Trump and the Republicans for maintaining this lie to this very day. His silence is utterly deplorable. Turley lacks the moral integrity to publicly oppose the Big Lie for fear of losing his lucrative career at Fox, but I wonder how long he will be able to retain the courage to keep his silence in the face of his academic and professional colleagues who openly condemn it.

  2. Please explain that the Supreme Court (most of the judicial branch) should have been impeached long ago for its failure to exercise its Marbury v Madison power of “judicial review” and declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    “…courts must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…[will] do…what their powers do not authorize [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    _________________

    Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.

    Government exists to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

    The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional, including but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    Professor Turley, you’ve got a whole lotta ‘splainin’ to do.

    The singular American failure has been and is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.

  3. PLEASE don’t forget to explain that the intent of our Founders was made crystal clear in 1803 when Judge Pickering was impeached and removed for his misconduct, and for simply being intoxicated on the bench, and the standards for impeachment in our Constitution are the same for the president as they are for judges and other “officers.” Knowing how objective you are, I’m certain you’ll explain that.

  4. Serious question; Is Mr. Turley a FOX employee or does he receive a payment from FOX for his advocacy of conservative commentary? I see comments suggesting a business relationship, but they may be rumors.

Leave a Reply