We recently discussed the troubling declaration of guilt made by President Joe Biden at the start of the investigation into border agents allegedly whipping or “strapping” undocumented Haitians trying to enter the country. The statement shattered the integrity of the investigation as well as the reputation of the federal agents. Now, President Biden has called for the Select Committee looking into the Jan. 6th riot to hold those who refuse subpoenas in contempt and for his Department of Justice to prosecute them. Continue reading “Biden Calls for the Prosecution of Anyone Refusing Subpoenas in the Jan. 6th Riot Investigation”
I recently discussed the Supreme Court’s affirmance of a decision rejecting constitutional arguments that the District of Columbia is entitled to a vote in Congress. I have repeatedly testified and written on the constitutional barriers to such a vote absent statehood. See Jonathan Turley, Too Clever By Half: The Partial Representation of the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives, 76 George Washington University Law Review 305-374 (2008). Given those long-standing views, I felt that the blog should hear from a leading intellectual with an opposing perspective. One of the briefs written in support of the district in the recent litigation was from constitutional scholars, including my colleague Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean at George Washington Law School. I reached out to Professor Morrison to see if he would offer a response on the ruling and the underlying issues. I was delighted when he accepted.
For many on this blog, Professor Morrison needs little introduction. He has not only previously written on the blog, but he is one of the most respected legal figures in the country with extensive litigation and public interest experience. His views on this and every subject are worth the most serious consideration by readers. Continue reading “Morrison: Time to Give DC Residents A Vote in Congress”
Below is my column in the Hill on the increasing calls for censorship and speech regulation on the Internet. The most recent push on Capitol Hill surrounds the testimony of former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen who alleges that Facebook has been knowingly harming children through promotion and access to certain sites. For some, the testimony follows a type of Trojan Horse pattern where anti-free speech measures are packaged as public safety measures. Before embracing the proposals of these senators, the public needs to think long and hard over what is being lost in these “reforms.”
Below is my column in the Hill on the controversy over U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents allegedly whipping undocumented immigrants on the southern border. The false accounts given by members of Congress and the media were alarming and likely defamatory. However, it was the comments of President Joe Biden that were the most damaging to both the investigation and the reputation of these agents. He seemed to finally find his “dog-faced lying pony soldiers” in the mounted border unit. Ironically, he is the most legally protected person in making defamatory comments.
YouTube continued the expansion of corporate censorship on the Internet with the encouragement of leading Democratic leaders. The company has banned channels associated with anti-vaccine activists like Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Once again, rather than rebutting or refuting claims made by others, many sought to silence those with opposing views. YouTube will not allow people to hear views that do not comport with an approved range of opinions. The move magnifies concerns that we are seeing the emergence of a new type of state media as private companies conduct censorship operations barred by the Constitution for the government to conduct directly. This move comes days after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) asked Amazon to steer customers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to avoid their exposure to “disinformation.” It also follows YouTube censoring videos of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny before Russia’s parliamentary elections. The move helped Putin and his authoritarian government crack down on pro-Democracy forces.
Continue reading “Free Speech Immunity: YouTube Bans Channels Airing Criticism of Vaccines”
Below is my column in USA Today on the recent call by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) for Amazon to steer readers to “true” books on climate change. It is the latest example of Democrat’s embracing a type of corporate governance model to carry out tasks barred to the government under the Constitution. Companies are now being asked to protect us from our own dangerous interests and inquiries. An array of enlightened algorithms will now watch over citizens to help them make good choices and read “true” things.
Below is my column in the Hill on the Sussmann indictment by Special Counsel John Durham. The single charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001 is not as significant as the supporting narrative and facts disclosed by Durham in this prosecution. The indictment fills in a number of blanks in how the Clinton campaign pushed a false Russian collusion narrative despite the objections of its own researchers.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Clinton Lawyer’s Indictment Reveals “Bag of Tricks””
Not long after the ratification of our Constitution, the great Justice Joseph Story marveled “How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be.” The Constitution is designed to be a type of waltz with a three rather than six-step pattern in our tripartite system of government. Many today however treat it more like an interpretative dance, an invitation for expressive individual moves. Indeed, in the last few months, President Joe Biden often seems to be dancing alone. The improvisational element to constitutional interpretation reflects more than mere political opportunism. It reflects a crisis of faith on the Constitution Day.
Below is my column in The Hill on the subpoena tsunami coming out of the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6th riot in Congress. The list of hundreds of targets include not only GOP members of Congress but demands for secrecy from these companies on the identity of targets. Just two months ago, the Democrats denounced such secret orders by the Justice Department as a threat to our civil liberties.
Here is my column in The Hill on the recent interview of Lt. Michael Byrd who was the hitherto unnamed Capitol Hill officer who shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th. The interview was notable in an admission that Byrd made about what he actually saw . . . and what he did not see.
Here is the column:
The Biden Administration has racked up a long line of losses in federal courts in what is one of the worst records in the first six months of any modern presidency. While most Administrations tend to minimize such test cases to avoid creating bad precedent, the Biden Administration has litigated with an utter abandon — elevating political over legal considerations in litigation. The latest is one of the most disturbing. This week the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down President Biden’s renewal of the controversial eviction moratorium. It was the second time that a majority of justices declared the moratorium as unconstitutional but, as in other areas, the Biden Administration has become openly and chillingly dismissive of such legal considerations. Continue reading “Supreme Court Delivers New Rebuke to the Biden Administration in Reinstating the “Remain in Mexico””