This week, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, formally introduced impeachment articles against U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg. It was a popular move with many after a series of controversial orders by Judge Boasberg. I have been highly critical of those orders, particularly the prior orders granting Special Counsel Jack Smith’s demand for the telephone records of Republican members of Congress in the “Arctic Frost” probe. However, I disagree that his order meets the standard for impeachment under the Constitution.
In an earlier resolution in March, Rep. Gill sought to impeach Boasberg over immigration rulings against the Trump Administration. I also opposed that resolution.
I have previously written that it would be a grave mistake to misuse impeachment powers to target judges or justices.
One of the greatest abuses of members of the Democratic Party in the past eight years has been their use of impeachment investigations and charges against their political opponents. From President Donald Trump to conservative justices, liberal members have demanded impeachments over everything from opposing the NFL kneelers to hanging revolutionary-era flags.
I testified in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden on the use and the abuse of this power. I was also lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment trial in the Senate. In my view, this is not an appropriate use of impeachment and could seriously undermine our constitutional system.
I share Rep. Gill’s objections to the Arctic Frost orders. It was a signature move by Smith, who has previously abused his authority by refusing to heed long-standing limits on the use of prosecutorial powers. While some Democratic members have supported the orders, it is a dangerous precedent that can expose communications with members with journalists, whistleblowers, and others.
Rep. Gill is also correct in stating in the resolution that these members were “acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.” Having previously represented the House of Representatives in court as well as individual members of Congress, I also view this as an intrusive and unjustified search.
However, this is not what impeachment was designed to address. Indeed, the Framers created a difficult process for impeachment precisely to discourage impulsive or ill-considered measures.
Boasberg allowed Smith to subpoena phone records for 10 senators and one House lawmaker. Smith also sent gag orders to Verizon and AT&T instructing them not to notify lawmakers of the subpoena. Verizon complied with the order, but AT&T refused to do so.
In signing the orders, Boasberg acted in accordance with the Stored Communications Act. He clearly agreed with Smith that evidence of collusion or conspiracy would fall outside of the protected functions of members of Congress.
The new resolution is notably vague and speculative in critical respects. It suggests that the judge might have been actively involved with Smith in targeting Republicans: “It is unclear if Judge Boasberg facilitated the frivolous 23 subpoenas issued by Special Counsel John L. Smith.” There is no evidence to suggest that Boasberg engaged in such unethical conduct.
It then charges: “Chief Judge Boasberg does not appreciate basic statute [sic] and contributed to the legal inquiries that violate the law indicating he is unfit to 21 serve as Chief Judge.”
Members can certainly view Chief Judge Boasberg as wrong on the law. I have criticized him in past orders precisely over such disagreements. However, legal disputes are addressed in the court system, including those prior orders. Indeed, Chief Judge Boasberg was both affirmed and blocked on previous issues.
None of that rises to “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The removal of a judge from the federal bench is a rare and weighty decision. It should not be based on differences over statutory interpretations, even when a judge is later reversed. Conservatives would be equally aggrieved if a Democratically controlled House impeached a judge for ruling against a Democratic president or for adopting a controversial interpretation on issues related to gun or abortion rights.
These measures can trigger tit-for-tat politics as each party harasses judges considered obstacles to their agendas. Such a pattern would undermine the independence and integrity of our court system. One can disagree — and even denounce — Chief Judge Boasberg for prior orders without resorting to this constitutional nuclear option.
Why did AT&T refuse the order?
Because it was seen as illegal by their legal team. Members of congress are provided work product protection against these very types of subpoenas. They are supposed to be at least told of the subpoenas so they can challenge them. While JT points out that Boasberg believed that “collusion” or “conspiracy” fell outside of general work product, but what steps were taken to separate the two. You cannot let a crazed partisan hack like Jack Smith to just have access to Senator’s emails without their knowledge simply because he is making accusations of “collusion” or “conspiracy” that really had issues fitting into any actual law being broken.
CH Truth.
As it stands… an allegation made by an illegally appointed prosecutor WITHO ZERO evidence is sufficient to spy on elected representatives?
Impeachment now or set a new low.
I believe that is the crux of the matter. What the two branches of the government were conspiring to do was illegal; hence no retribution for AT&T. If two branches of government conspire against the remaining one, then there must be overwhelming justification of their purpose. This judge had no justification and thereby conspired with the Executive branch in an illegal search and seizure of multiple Senators of the United States of America. I believe this exactly what the founders meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
I am always amazed when there are huge violations of individual rights (“FBI Lawyer to Plead Guilty of Falsifying Document for Carter Page FISA Warrant”) with no reasonable punishment. From a philosophical and psychological perspective, we are only bound to our “law and order” government, if that government upholds the highest standards of integrity. Without that integrity, as Hobbs says, we revert to a war of all against all, where life is solitary, poor, brutish, and short. Indeed, we must err on the side of being too strict with our government and those who form it.
This is only my second MAJOR disappointment in JT – the other was his failed understanding of why academia is so bad. I know why it’s bad, but I have yet to see any academician understand why – including JT.
Nonetheless, I do enjoy reading his commentary.
John Turley: Perfectly fine with a coup, so long as it is the folks in the robes doing it. Sure, dude.
“Robes are a symbol of authority in the West. The man who wears a robe as part of his profession has been invested with a degree of formal authority that other men do not possess… At the turn of the century, political and conspiratorial elites began a long-term program to ‘capture the robes’ of American culture. They recognized the importance of judges, professors, and ministers.”
In reading all of this, cannot understand the appropriate cessation and punishment process for judges (and court officers) who willingly write the law and use it as an excuse to violate existing law and principles of the Constitutional Judicial system – and then call it Robes of Authority. Judge Roy Bean really should be (or should have been) the ruling king of the world?
A judge must not have to worry about second-guessing every bit of logic each time a decision is made. That is well understood, for unless they can make their human decisions without fear, we lose our judiciary.
However, when the same judge keeps showing up in the big political cases, and the results keep pointing in the same direction, normal people will notice, as they should. One doesn’t need a law degree to see a pattern. All that is needed are two eyes and a memory. We have been seeing this for a while, so we already should have had transparency and some honest procedural sunlight.
Nothing was done, and now trust is gone. Can it be rebuilt with a press release? Of course not. There is no need to recount the failures or the variety of them; they have been repeated on the blog: concerns over rulings, assignments, timing, appointments, and perhaps insider advantage. Too much of the public feels Boasberg’s decisions were rigged. Once that happens, something needs to be done.
Roberts failed, and now it seems the best alternative might be to impeach Boasberg, something I would normally object to doing. At this late stage, it appears the only remaining option is impeachment, even though there will be no conviction.
That is an awful place to be, but here we are. I take no pleasure in saying it, but denial won’t fix anything.
Well said, SM. You’ve captured the real issue — trust. When the same judge keeps surfacing in every politically sensitive case with outcomes tilting one way, the public can’t just be told to “move along.” Transparency isn’t harassment; it’s the foundation of faith in the system.
Impeachment isn’t about punishing bad rulings — it’s about restoring confidence that the judiciary answers to the same constitutional limits as every other branch. Roberts failed to police his own house. Now Congress must decide if accountability is still part of ours.
Thanks, Olly. I understand what Turley is afraid of, but what he has left others and me with is complete distrust of the judiciary. He needs to delve deeper into this question, but I don’t think he will. This is at the heart of our Republic: respect for the judiciary? Without that respect, the country, like a table, could fall.
I get the sense Professor Turley is trying to protect the fundamentals of the Constitution — and that’s admirable. But in doing so, he’s overlooking how those very fundamentals are being eroded by the people who swore oaths to uphold them.
When judges, prosecutors, and political actors weaponize their offices, it’s not “protecting the system” to look away — it’s enabling its decay. Defending the structure means confronting those who corrupt it, even if they operate from within the robes of authority. The Constitution isn’t weakened by accountability; it’s strengthened by it.
Nicely done.
Where is that guy from awhile back who went around stuffing cream pies in the faces of these bozos? Time for him to come out of retirement or train a successor.
Something needs to be done about these Trump Derangement Syndrome federal judges. The appellate courts need to start being more openly critical of the judge they are reversing. I read the facts section of the Ninth Circuit opinion reversing the district judge’s order regarding Trump sending national guard to Portland. To make that ruling the district judge had to intentionally ignore the overwhelming facts supporting the need for federal intervention.
I have a respectful nit-pick about the title to this article:
No, the House should not impeach Judge Boasberg
Why do we need the first word: “No.” Couldn’t the title be:
The House should not impeach Judge Boasber
What purpose is served by the first word? I say: none at all. The shorter title is sufficient and it is better. Why? Not only is it fewer words, which is itself better, but the first word, "No," makes it sound like the author is either (a) answering a question that was not asked by the reader, or (b) scolding the reader. There is nothing gained by it. It just gives the title a hectoring or condescending tone, which is a turn-off, in my view. When I see it, I immediately don’t want to read it.
Double negative?
” Why?”
Perhaps the professor realizes in advance that his point will not be accepted because too many have lost faith in our judiciary.
Can he outright say that Judge Roberts failed? That things should have been done earlier?
Maybe he will provide a follow-up on this question, where he deals with how to manage a loss of faith.
Meyer – How to manage a loss of faith. That is indeed an interesting question, and like you I hope he speaks to it.
“Perhaps the professor realizes in advance that his point will not be accepted because too many have lost faith in our judiciary.”
Or perhaps he realizes that more and more are seeing him as the Emperor in his new clothes. We can put as much effort into finding excuses for Professor Turley so desperately attempting to avoid dealing with the obvious, as Professor Turley invests in desperately attempting to minimize Judge Boasberg’s felonious deprivation of the civil rights of those who Boasberg sees as Republican targets.
Foreign communist reinforcements just arrived to complete the conquest of MexAfriAsiAmericanistan.
Come on, Donald, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln would have forcibly imposed martial law by now!
“THE INJURIOUS TENDENCY OF DISCORDANT INTERMIXTURE MANIFESTED”
Indubitably, this is precisely what the American Founders intended for the America they established:
Comrade General Secretary Zorro Madman-y and Buttrack Obongo take over New Yorkistan and Bluestateistan.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
“In my view, this is not an appropriate use of impeachment and could seriously undermine our constitutional system.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Undermine our constitutional system, you say?
Article 1, Section 8:
The American “CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM” allows taxation for ONLY “debt,” “defense,” and “general welfare,” general being all or the whole.
The American “CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM” allows regulation of ONLY “the value of money,” “commerce among nations, states, and Indian tribes,” and “land and naval Forces.”
The 5th Amendment right to private property allows ONLY the owner to “claim and exercise” dominion.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] 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
_________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
I agree, he needn’t be impeached, but the higher courts need to do their job in regard to him, and right quick. All of his ilk are a plague and a disgrace.
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil Democrat Judges and Lawyers is that Allegedly Good Democrat Lawyers Do Nothing
– Quoting John Stuart Mill
For the known first appearance of that apothegm, in 1867 John Stuart Mill delivered that line in an inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews. The full context of that part of his address may well have been directed straight at Professor Turley writing this column condemning impeachment in hopes of defending Judge Boasberg continuing to strip Republicans of their First Amendment rights:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply.
John Stuart Mill had Jonathan Turley’s number almost a century before Turley was even born.
Going back more than 1000 years, the concept of a constitutional rule of law and old English common law is “constructionist” not “originalist”. In other words there is a chronology, new laws are interpreted and built upon older laws. Called precedent.
Today in court cases, attorneys win most cases citing past rulings (precedent). Today’s rulings are built upon sometimes hundreds of years of previous court rulings.
The American Framers of the Constitution, especially Alexander Hamilton (architect of the American Justice system) believed that in unconstitutional questions that – precedent should guide and govern most future court cases unless it was a constitutional question.
In constitutional questions, Hamilton believed that “constitutionality” should supersede “unconstitutional” precedent.
For example: Women’s voting rights were not part of the “original” Constitution. The constitutional argument was based on using past court rulings to make the case that women should have the right to vote.
In recent years equal marriage rights and equal adoption rights for LGBT-Americans was built upon the 1960’s rulings legalizing interracial marriage. Gay rights were built upon the foundation of previous rulings.
Maybe the real crisis in the USA is when officials from both parties simply agree that neither laws nor the U.S. Constitution matter. As long as both parties agree to break the law together – laws don’t matter, the Constitution doesn’t matter, treaties (Article VI) don’t matter. Nobody will enforce law breaking so that’s okay to violate one’s Oath of Office. Republicans and Democrats will break the law together so everybody’s hands are dirty and nobody enforces those laws.
For example: Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty was a legally-binding international treaty and even codified as a criminal offense into American federal law. Reagan’s treaty even governed cruel treatment in addition to conventional forms of torture.
Both Republicans and Democrats simply agreed to break those laws and violate their Oath of Office.
For more than 20 years, no government officials have even apologized to their torture and blacklisting victims. The statistics are now available, most torture victims were totally innocent. None were criminally indicted for ordering torture and cruel treatment.
Even worse many of the innocent torture victims had been blacklisted as far back as the 1980’s. So complete and absolute fraud was being conducted uploading innocent Americans onto post-9/11 blacklists (still being punished today in 2025).
Bottom Line: for at least 20 years, the USA is essentially an authoritarian Banana Republic with no real justice system. It’s really hard to now take any of this cherry-picked justice as legitimate.
What’s needs to happen: All of America’s 21st Century blacklisting torture victims need public apologies from the U.S. Department of Justice. This apology is absolutely vital since innocent Americans had their employment histories destroyed. More needs to be done but the public apology is the most important action needed nearly 25 years after these war crimes were committed against innocent Americans – by both political parties.
American freedom persisted for a mere 71 years.
The inflection point of the incremental transition from freedom to communism was 1860.
The end point was achieved today.
Side note detraction: While no disagreeing with the assumption of this@Anonymous commentator, I would really have to go back (again) and reread the Federalist papers and Hamilton’s role in the creation, much less the execution of the Judicial system. Many historians question his contribution and desire for a unified Constitution – especially given his initial, and vehement initial contestation of the Bill of Rights therein. Additionally, one would have to question if Hamilton’s “support” was anything more than newer paper version of the Magna Carta – which, even though signed by King John, was basically ignored and used as a pharisee self-praising paintbrush of his own glory without any (ever) compliance with its wording.
Stated simply, Hamilton was more likely a proponent of American Monarchism and oligarchical autocracy – and his 42 or so articles in the Federalist Papers were generally more of a “devils advocate” expression in light of the more credible James Madison and John Jay who actually contributed to the creation of the US Constitution.
It is often suggested that Alexander Hamilton spread rumors about Aaron Burr and his daughter, Theodosia, which included accusations of incest. This character assassination is believed to have contributed to the tensions that led to their infamous duel.
You may want to change the “judicial” system fatherhood references to Madison and John Jay.
In a society of laws, the laws must be strictly adhered to.
The law, in this case, is Article 2, Section 4.
The only question: Has Boasberg committed any aspect or degree of treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and misdemeanors.
Count the votes.
I vote yes.
_____________
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
What does your screed have to do with Prof. Turley’s opinion piece?
Cool. Let’s torture Boasberg then. How else to stop him?
Remember the good old days over 15 years ago, back when Professor Turley was just one of several lawyers (and his faithful sidekick Darren) regularly writing columns here? Remember his column eagerly calling first for the firing, and then ultimately for the impeachment of Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, over his refusal to comply with a summons and his lawfare assaults on the 1st Amendment rights of news journalists?
What AG Eric Holder did was nowhere near as evil and illegal as Judge Boasberg’s empowering and assisting Democrat police state fascism, back then Professor Turley’s professional marketing suite wasn’t styling himself as the high protector of 1st Amendment freedom.
Now as the defender of Americans’ 1st Amendment freedoms, the Turley who wrote demanding AG Eric Holder be impeached is functioning as Boasberg’s sin-eater (his term for Holder when writing he must be impeached), condemning the House bringing articles of impeachment against Boasberg.
My, my, my… the things you remember when you’ve been reading this blog for far longer than just one presidential term.
Thank you Prof Turley for a thoughtful essay. You make the excellent point of the intent of impeachment. However, this case does present a quandary. You state “However, legal disputes are addressed in the court system, including those prior orders.” But if Judge Boasberg orders that knowledge of the surveillance be kept secret from the targeted Senators and Congressman and there is no higher judicial review of his orders, then how can there ever be any appeal and legal review of the likes of Judge Boasberg? In an adversarial system if one side is kept ignorant, the court review system is nullified. Herein, I think, lies a potential remedy, rather than impeachment, for Congress to regulate the extent that courts can keep surveillance orders from being reviewable.
Trump’s fraud and extortion is who impeachment was written for. Boasberg just granted righteous orders. Not even close. Impeach trump, leave Boasberg alone.
To: ^Anonymous: @ November 5, 2025 at 12:27 PM^
Boasberg’s active participation was Part-n-Parcel of the ‘Conspiracy to Overthrow the Government’ (To thwart a Candidate and overthrow a Federal Governmental Election).
This was Treason – Never Forget.
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
___________________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
_____________________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
_____________________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
____________________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
________________
“I had a discussion with the case team and we believe there to be predication to include former President of the United States Donald J. Trump as a predicated subject.”
– Timothy Thibault to John Crabb, U.S. Attorney’s Office, D.C.
__________________________________________________________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney, Lisa O. Monaco, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg,
Matthew Colangelo, Merrick Garland, Juan Merchan, Timothy Thibault et al.
“Trump’s fraud and extortion is who impeachment was written for”
THE CLINTON/BIDEN FELONIOUS “RUSSIA DOSSIER”! It’s baaaackkkk!!!!
The ‘mens rea’ of the Modus Operandi underwriting H.R. Clinton’s Assault-of-Conspiracies was ‘Bravado’.
Of which They (et.al) thought that ‘all would go unchallenged’. After all, Whom are the Trumps or You to question Our Authority.
From Clinton, Brennen, Comey, Wray, Clapper, Boasberg, The Bidens … That is a lot of Bravado (Ambition) going around (and still is).
THE LIST please George …….
It’s time to wheel out the Guillotine on the very spot where Hunter Biden (Dec. 13th 2023) made his speech outside the Capitol and start Chopping!
(Sugar Bro Kevin Morris can be the Set-Director of the ‘LIVE’ beheadings)
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=LBKsQCYwvM0
“My father was not financially involved in my business”: Hunter Biden speaks outside Capitol Hill
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=LBKsQCYwvM0
What is criminal contempt of Congress?
By Paul LeBlanc and Zachary B. Wolf, CNN
Published ~ December 13, 2023
[Link] cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/criminal-contempt-of-congress
Merrick Garland spars with House Judiciary over Jan. 6 and Hunter Biden
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=5sr9BEfHeu8
Never Forget
Boasberg is an activist judge that like many (sadly) believes the constitution is outdated and should be disregarded. The post modernists in the democratic party have installed many such judges. We can just wait for them to all die…..what do you suggest we do with anti-constitution Judges then?
Cuomo could still win the election for NYC mayor if only Mike Pence has the courage.
I’m sure Cuomo will be the winner after they recount the votes 7 times and discover that all the mail in votes for Cuomo from Kentucky, Texas, and Florida weren’t counted.
MyPillow guy needs to get on this!
If Boasberg is consistently wrong on the law, why show he remain a judge? Sounds like you are saying “No one is above the law – except federal judges.” If anyone else screwed up time and time again, they would be fired. Why are judges different? They are not elected and don’t have to face periodic reappointment hearings. The ONLY way to get rid of a bad judge is impeachment. I understand Turley’s argument here but without a credible threat of removal, why would any judge refrain from repeatedly making outrageous and biased rulings? Maybe being overruled on appeal should be like batters – three strikes and you’re out. If so, Boasberg would have been in dugout long ago.
I agree with you but I think the key is whether the Judge is just a bad judge or if he can be determined to be intentionally ruling for one political side regardless of the law. Intent can be conclusively presumed on issues like that just as easily as it can be in other alleged crimes. If the evidence warrants it, impeachment is justified. That, to me, is a violation of the Judge’s Oath of office and amounts to a High Crime and Misdemeanor in my book. As for the simply bad judges, the appellate courts will take care of them and it is the Senators, who confirmed them, who should be sanctioned by the voters. Unfortunately, however, the voters are brain dead to issues like that. They only care about free stuff.
Professor Turley has been one of the strongest voices exposing the DOJ and FBI’s abuses in Crossfire Hurricane, Arctic Frost, and beyond. That’s why this post feels so out of character. Nearly everyone here — aside from the usual trolls — disagrees with his take, and for good reason.
It’s strange to see him defend a judge’s insulation from impeachment when he’s long warned against unaccountable power. I don’t know what’s behind this shift — personal caution, professional calculation, maybe something bigger — but it doesn’t sound like the Turley we’ve followed for years.
it doesn’t sound like the Turley we’ve followed for years.
This is nowhere near the first time that Professor Turley has turned a blind eye to – or defended – the abuses of his fellow Democrat lawyers and fellow members of the DC Bar Association. One example being his good friend, Attorney General Merrick Garland, over the last four years, and who is now deeply tied in with Jack Smith and these warrants Boasberg issued to once again fraudulently strip Americans of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights.
Professor Turley, defender of 1st Amendment rights, deals with his fellow Washington DC Democrat lawyers like Boasberg, Garland, Wray, and Smith depriving Americans of their civil rights through color of law by saving them through faint criticism.
But… perhaps Professor Turley isn’t the only one who can claim tunnel vision of what’s wide open before him as his defense.
Olly, why would this be strange? Professor Turley has consistently maintained his position on the use of impeachment and criticized its improper application. It may seem out of character for him because, most of the time, he presents skewed narratives that align with the right’s perceptions of justice. He has been feeding MAGA conspiracy theorists and catering to the Fox News audience with what they want to hear. However, when he stands firmly on principle regarding something he knows is wrong, and that contradicts his readers’ expectations, it creates the odd contradiction you see. This is why Professor Turley’s opinions and analyses often don’t align; he refuses to stray from the few principles that do not match the right’s expectations.
I have always predicted this behavior from Turley. The moment he deviates from the MAGA expectation or worldview, they will turn on him like a rabid dog. If he published a couple of articles agreeing with leftist ideas or positions and defended them consecutively, he would immediately be branded a traitor. That is how MAGA operates.
“. . . they will turn on him like a rabid dog.”
That’s low — even for you.
I read every comment by those regulars who disagree with JT. They are reasoned arguments and profoundly respectful. In a word: They are civilized dissent.
The Left should try it sometime.
Sam, nope. Those disagreements include backhanded comments of treason and disloyalty. MAGA turns on you the moment you say something contrary to their percieved beliefs. Turley is defending Boasberg against impeachment and MAGA does not like that one bit. The want the harshest worst possible punishment for what they THINK is a crime or misconduct. Not what the law says.