JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. In 2020, the federal court found that there merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing to the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with this fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley has selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
For further information: Mr. Seth Tate – 202-994-0537
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
mary leon: I told you long ago that your favorite progressive, Larry Flynt the porno king, has a reward for $1,000,000 to anybody that can prove President Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. The offer has been out there for 5 years now and nobody can claim it because he wasn’t AWOL.
russ:
I ask you again:
Why do you post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
(Original Quote by ME)
russ:
You’re doing it again! You’re writing someone else’s comments; but at least you’re giving the source credit for it.
Oh, by the way, the current commander-and-thief is the one who is afraid of our military. After all, he’s the one who was AWOL for over a year from the National Guard during the Vietnam War. Put that together with his veep *5 defferments* Cheney, and you have your two chicken-hawks.
I wouldn’t laugh too much about the World Court not being able to get any leader guilty of war crimes just yet.
Bush WILL pay for what he’s done to us, either here or in the next life…
And YOU will pay for your supporting him, one way or another…
According to the NYT, you two percenters are getting restless about Obama……..::
In the breathless weeks before the Oregon presidential primary in May, Martha Shade did what thousands of other people here did: she registered as a Democrat so she could vote for Senator Barack Obama.
Now, however, after critics have accused Mr. Obama of shifting positions on issues like the war in Iraq, the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, gun control and the death penalty — all in what some view as a shameless play to a general election audience — Ms. Shade said she planned to switch back to the Green Party.
“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”
I see no transformational quality to either Obama or his candidacy. Obama said he was a new kind of politician. He sold an entire younger generation on the theory of change, a new kind of politics in Washington and he’s delivered the status quo. He’s shown us that on FISA, the death penalty, guns, religion, Iraq, Afghanistan and trade policy (so far) he’s all about preserving the status quo and not rocking the boat in his quest for votes. How much more “politics as usual” can you get? … How does anyone know what Obama really believes or, even more problematic, what beliefs he’ll decide are worth expending political capital on once he’s elected?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13liberal.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
mary leon:
LOL! Ya try them in the famous WORLD COURT! What a rip roaring joke and now you 1 percenters really think it COULD happen.
Let’s see now; the WORLD COURT has not brought a single third world murderous dictator to justice but BY GOD the WORLD COURT is going to put a UNITED STATES PRESIDENT in JAIL for freeing countries from tyranny!
Ya, that will get you all a lot of votes in the next election. GO FER IT! LOL!
I can’t stop laughing..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! world COURT! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahhahahhhhhhhhhhhhahahaahahahahaahhah,,world court…lahahahahahaaahahahahahhaheeheeehahchahaeehhheeeeeeeeehhaww!
Say, I see Obama is TANKING EVERYWHERE! Even the Germans want Obama to stay out of Germany, the smart ones anyway.
Hey, russ, what are your thoughts about the book that will be published next week that has the official Red Cross findings that the CIA, through Bush, HAS committed torture on prisoners?
I’ve even heard that if we don’t start Impeachment against Cheney and then Bush, the World Court might decide to bring charges of War Crimes against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc…
Our own Congress won’t do anything, because Pelosi and lots of others are also guilty of war crimes. The only person who has enough guts to say anything has always been Rep. Dennis Kucinich. God Love him.
In 2002, Bush signed some kind of act that would allow him and any of his administration to ignore any subpoena from the World Court. (way back then, Bush KNEW he was doing wrong, and he tried to ‘cover all his bases’). BUT I know that the majority in the world would welcome any kind of trial for this evil administration, so Big Deal about Bush trying to ignore any subpoena. He won’t be able to hide forever on his 100,000 acres in Paraguay. Cheney has a bigger spread, right down the road from Bush.
How are you going to feel, knowing that you support WAR CRIMINALS???
The U.S. is on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels, pursuing every source of energy out there –solar, nuclear, clean coal, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, shale. We need it all.
But we’ve built up an infrastructure over 100 years that must be relied upon as we make the change to renewable sources. Congress has to get out of the way and allow the U.S. to develop its resources for that infrastructure – or we’re headed towards economic catastrophe.
A number of Democratic officeholders have heard from their constituents, and they know they desperately need to vote to expand energy exploration. But their leadership is making sure they cannot.
You can feel the Democratic solidarity on this fragmenting. One of two scenarios is likely. Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development – in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale – or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall’s elections than most pundits now assume.
A commander-in-chief who fears the military?
July 12, 2008
John McCain has accepted an invitation to appear at a nationally-televised town hall meeting next month organized by a coalition of support organizations. Despite pleas from the group, Barack Obama has refused to appear at the same event, underscoring his desire to avoid extemporaneous exchanges with John McCain, especially on military matters in which he has no experience at all.
The Fort Hood group has offered to change dates, but Obama remains obstinate.
Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, said she had suggested Aug. 11 and asked the campaign to suggest other dates if that was not convenient, but after several conversations she had not been able to work anything out. “I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”
On a number of occasions, Obama challenged McCain to debate foreign policy and the war, “anywhere, any time”. Hmmmm.
Rumor had it that Barack Obama would release his June fundraising numbers yesterday.
John McCain released his two days ago and raised a huge amount.
So far today, no release of information has come across the wires or at Obama’s website.
Does Team Obama have bad news they want to bury far into a weekend cycle?
Maybe Obama is going to FLIP FLOP on campaign finance and decide to change his mind & take public financing after changing his mind & deciding to take private financing after telling America he would take public financing…..
Dear Professor Turley,
You have captured us here in our home. I stop whatever I am doing when you are on, and have my children watch you later on Tivo. When you speak we learn so much about our Constitution, and how wonderful our rights are, and how evil it is for those who wish to restrict our rights. You are the truest Patriot – and we very much appreciate your sharing your knowledge in such a clear and approachable way – our family will follow you!
Respectfully,
Carla
One last comment before the weekend:
russ:
As far as Barack Obama, we shall see what happens. We can only live one day at a time. I’m just hoping he’s elected President, Bush gets what he deserves–a prison sentence for war crimes, (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Gonzo, etc…) I have no more power to make these things happen than you do.
And why do you come here to post on Mr. Turley’s website if you don’t respect him or are interested in his views? Seems to me like you’re wasting our time here…
Newsweek Poll: Obama drops like a rockposted at 6:53 pm on July 11, 2008
Newsweek’s poll surprised many by showing a huge gap between Barack Obama and John McCain, with the Democratic nominee-apparent enjoying a 15-point lead over the Republican.
One month later, Obama has lost all of the momentum and has dropped into a virtual tie with McCain. The latest Newsweek poll shows Obama up 44-41, within the margin of error:
A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama’s glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month’s NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.
Obama’s rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience–an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who’d slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama’s reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama’s outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June’s NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
There is a definite momentum away from Obama, especially within the independents. June’s poll, taken only three weeks ago, had Obama ahead by 12 points, 48-36. Obama has lost a whopping 14 points among independents and now trails McCain, 34-41. “Undecided/Other” rose among independents from 16% in June to 25% in July, which likely shows flirtation with third-party candidates such as Ralph Nader and Bob Barr — but some went to McCain as well.
By the way Mary Leon, for every Jonathan Turley on MSNBC, long noted as a joke for any balance, there are a dozen others more versed in law that KNOW this Rove chase is a big fat JOKE!:::
In Defense of Karl Rove
July 11, 2008 – 5:11 pm
It seems the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is trying to obtain information from Mr. Rove concerning the firing of several U.S. Attorneys by the President. Now the President has the right to fire any U.S. attorney. (This isn’t the teachers union!) In fact, Bill Clinton fired I think the figure is 94, U.S. attorneys and Mr. Clinton’s staff was not subjected to any subpoenas. As they shouldn’t have been.
So, what does Mr. Rove know that the Committee Members want him to repeat under oath? Absolutely nothing. Do the House members think that Mr. Rove will assert that the President fired some of the U.S. attorneys because he does not agree with their political philosophy? No. Are they being barraged with phone calls and emails by their respective constituencies wondering what Mr. Rove knows? Of course not. If the President wants to fire 500 U.S. attorneys, it IS his right to do so. I will go so far as to say that if President Bush fired all of the U.S. attorneys because they disagree with his political philosophy, so what?
Let me remind the American public that WE voted for President Bush and WE respect the right of the President to make an executive decision. That’s his job. If the American public wants a new President, guess what? We have that opportunity every four years. It’s called America, not Russia.
Mr. Rove has offered to answer questions posed by the Committee to get to the bottom of whatever it is they want from Mr. Rove, but the Committee has rejected Mr. Rove’s offer. Why? Because an informal question and answer session will NOT embarrass the President. It is Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat that are pursuing Mr. Rove. Please, if either of these Democrats are YOUR representative, by all means, contact them, and ask them to concentrate on keeping their own jobs of working for the PEOPLE, and stop wasting your tax payer dollars on attempting to embarrass the President.
Mary Leon. You write FISA will be one of the first things addressed by Barack……LOL! Ya, I bet right up there with going back to his bank and asking them to INCREASE his loan rate!
You might be interested in this, I think it is the tip of the iceberg for Barack. He is as corrupt if not more than your average politician:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
Judicial Watch Files Senate, FEC Complaints against Barack Obama over Questionable Mortgage Loan
Northern Trust Allegedly Provided Obama Special Discounts on “Super Super Jumbo” Home Loan
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below-market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.
russ:
I knew you wouldn’t answer my questions, but I didn’t know you’d start a “kill David Shuster” campaign.
I saw “Verdict” last night and I agree with Mr. Turley about the telecoms getting immunity and your president Bush getting away with more crimes.
I know that when Barack Obama is President he will have to go through all the various laws, by-laws, signing statements, etc… that Bush did and have his assistants find out what is and isn’t Legal. (My guess is that 99.999% of everything that Bush approved is ILLEGAL). This will take Months and Months of work to try and go back and correct all this Illegal activity.
I also know Barack Obama voted in favor of this sham of a FISA bill, but he has said that, since there is so little time left before Bush is given his walking papers out of the White House, that Barack will be starting on his long job of fixing our broken government. I’m sure this FISA bill will be one of the first things addressed, right after Barack agrees with Iraq to end this Illegal Bush Invasion.
Have a good weekend…
Mr. Turley,
On a recent “Countdown” you had commented about the protection for the telecoms and referred to the Founders and how they would be appalled by this attack on the Fourth Amendment. Every time I hear the Founders referenced as to what they would think or feel I am shocked- especially when stated by a lawyer and my understanding of “hear-say.” Admittedly not an expert, I would bet (if it were legal in California) there would be much of our present-day America the Founders would find contrary to their vision. Regardless, after reading your posted biography I applaud your involvement in defining our laws despite often views to the contrary.
Best of luck on the site.
Thank you.
JT was on with the FAMOUS DAVID SHUSTER TONIGHT!
On September 24, 2007, Shuster interviewed Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn while filling in on Tucker Carlson’s show.[1] When Shuster asked about her response to the MoveOn.org ad campaign concerning General David Petraeus’s Iraq war testimony, he followed up by then asking her the name of the last soldier from her congressional district who had been killed in Iraq; she was not able to name the soldier. Shuster mentioned that it was 18-year-old Jeremy Bohannon, and asked Blackburn why she was not able to recall the name. However, Bohannon was not actually from Blackburn’s congressional district, but had grown up in the congressional district of Rep. John Tanner.
That interview was not the first time Shuster has sparked controversy.
Shuster has been criticized for inserting political commentary into his coverage of news stories. One incident occurred on May 8, 2006, when he cited attorneys familiar with the CIA leak investigation and proclaimed, “I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted”[2] in relation to the Plame affair. A month later, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who had always indicted grand jury figures referred to as “person A,” announced that Rove would not be indicted.
On February 7, 2008, while hosting an MSNBC program, Shuster discussed Chelsea Clinton’s campaigning for her mother Hillary Clinton, her efforts to influence superdelegates, and her refusal to answer any questions by the media. When his guest, Bill Press, pointed out that Bush’s daughters campaigned for their father, Shuster noted the different access rules in each case and responded:
“There’s just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea’s out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom … doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
The Clinton campaign demanded an apology and stated that Clinton might not participate in any further debates on MSNBC. Shuster was suspended from all NBC News and MSNBC appearances for his comments. Before the suspension Shuster had engaged in a heated e-mail exchange with a Clinton staffer in which he defended his remarks. Shuster’s long suspension from on-air duties ended on February 22, 2008.
On February 9, 2008, a blogger posted that Phil Griffin, senior vice president at the network, threatened to fire Shuster for not having apologized; Meet the Press host Tim Russert intervened with Griffin on Shuster’s behalf.
Ask a Republican a question, get a response about “weak kneed” and “talking down black people”.
Big Deal, russ. Jackson is just jealous of Barack because Jackson is getting to be an old fart and doesn’t hold sway on anyone anymore.
So, did you think up this about Barack all by yourself, or did you write this from a blog or website?
Oh, I know you won’t answer this question, but, russ–when are YOU going to Iraq to fight for your president?
Oh, one more thing: are you going to leave the United States when Barack Obama becomes President?
Wow, Senator Obama was sure quick to accept Jesse Jackson’s apology over threatening to cut a physical attribute of Senator Obama’s off if he didn’t stop “talking down black people”.
I wonder if a weak kneed PRESIDENT Obama will be so quick to run out and jump to accept an Achmadinejad’s “apology” after threatening to blow New York City off the face of the earth a couple years down the road.
We don’t need a WEAK man protecting a nation of 330 million people do we? Even Jesse Jackson’s SON was tougher on his father than Obama was; maybe the party nominated the wrong man for President, maybe it should have been a strong Jesse Jackson Junior, a man obviously not afraid of even his own father.
Good News from Iraq:
Al-Maliki has announced that before the US makes any kind of agreement with Iraq that the US has to follow a timetable set by Iraq.
Bush says that we will leave when the US generals decide the conditions on the ground are good and he will not follow any timetable.
I say: let the Iraqis make their own decisions. After all, it’s THEIR country!
to russ, martha, Percy, etc…
powerline blog–whoopie, two lawyers write a right-wing blog and you copy their work. Why can’t any of you repubs write your OWN words?
Me, I write what I feel and what I believe. I don’t need to go to any other website or blog and write, word for word, what someone else has said or written.
Can’t you think for yourselves and write something original to support your warped views?