I will be again debating Berkeley Law Professor and former Bush official John Yoo on war powers. This will be our third debate on the subject and will be held in Washington, D.C. at George Washington University. The event will be held on Wednesday at noon in the Moot Court Room at the law school.
Continue reading “John Yoo and Jonathan Turley To Debate War Powers”
Below is my latest column in USA Today on the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. I testified last week on the nomination before the Senate Judiciary hearing. I was particularly pleased that one of the other witnesses that day was a GW graduate: Karen Harned (Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center. Karen has quickly become a leader in Washington on legal and policy matters impacting businesses. Since the hearing (and publication of this column), the Democrats have indicated that they are preparing for a filibuster. (My colleague Dick Pierce has an interesting column opposing such a move).
As I stated at the hearing, I disagree with some of Judge Gorsuch’s opinions but I believe that he is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. I am particularly disturbed by some of the attacks on his writings on major issues of our time. While many lawyers in Washington pathologically avoid any statements or writings on controversial subjects in the hope for government appointments, Gorsuch actively participated in the national debate and contributed interesting perspectives on those questions. He refused to remain a pure pedestrian as others debated issues like euthanasia. He should not be penalized for doing so. One can disagree with his perspective but his analysis is uniformly probative and at times profound.
Continue reading “THE SENATE SHOULD CONFIRM JUDGE NEIL M. GORSUCH”
This morning I will testify at the confirmation hearing on the nomination of the Hon. Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. The hearing will commence around 9 am at the hearing room of Hart 216. Ironically, it is the same room that I litigated much of the Porteous impeachment case before final arguments before the 100 Senators on the Senate floor. Below is my written testimony. Continue reading “TURLEY TESTIFIES IN SENATE GORSUCH CONFIRMATION HEARING”
Judge Neil Gorsuch is scheduled to complete the long and grueling questioning of his confirmation hearing today. Indeed, he may finish a bit early. Like past nominees, Gorsuch declined to discuss cases and said little about his positions on possible cases dealing with subjects like abortion. Nominees are trained to hit grounders in these hearing and avoid pitches in the corners or trying to put anything over the wall. He stayed with that strategy and the Democrats have made little progress in undermining his stellar record. I have two columns out today at USA Today and The Hill newspaper discussing different aspects of the nomination. I am scheduled to testify at the hearing on Thursday when they call expert witnesses. There remains one disturbing question, however, that needs to be addressed: is Judge Gorsuch anti-duck?
There is a highly disturbing case out of Idaho where a 14-year-old boy and his ellow Labrador retriever, Casey, were poisoned by a “cyanide bomb” planted by U.S. government. In a truly baffling act, the Wildlife Services of U.S. Department of Agriculture planted the device to kill coyotes, wolves, cougars, foxes and other animals considered nuisances for farmers and ranchers. It seems unbelievably reckless to me to place these devices near trails and farms, even with signs that might be missed in the dark or lost to weather conditions.
Continue reading “Government “Cyanide Bomb” in Idaho Injures 14-Year-Old Boy and Kills His Dog”
The Senate Judiciary Committee has released the schedule and witness list for confirmation hearing of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for the United States Supreme Court. I have been called as a witness for the majority and will likely testify on Wednesday or Thursday. The hearings will begin on Monday. Questions for Judge Gorsuch will begin on Tuesday and likely continue into Wednesday.
Continue reading “Gorsuch Hearing To Start Monday; Turley To Testify On Thursday”
Last night, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a
temporary restraining order that prevents the second immigration order of President Donald Trump from going into effect on Thursday. The 43-page opinion is scathing and relies not only on the statements of President Trump but the recent statements of his chief aide Stephen Miller. While I respectfully disagree with Judge Watson and view his decision as contrary to the weight of existing case law, the opinion again shows the perils of presidents and their aides speaking publicly about litigation. Political facing saving comments can be case legal damaging comments. Yet, I still believe that Judge Watson relied too much on campaign statements and television interviews to overcome the facial neutrality of the language of the executive order.
Continue reading “Federal Judge In Hawaii Enjoins Second Executive Order”
Below is my recent column about a type of new article of faith for lawyers in opposing President Donald Trump and his Administration. Here is the column:
Continue reading “Opposing Trump Is The New Article Of Faith For Lawyers”
The build up last night on MSNBC had my phone ringing off the hook. Rachel Maddow proclaimed “we’ve got the Trump returns.” It turned out to be just the 2005 filing. Well, not the 2005 filing, the first two pages. Worse yet, it turned out to be an entirely predictable tax return for a wealthy businessman with tons of deductibles. It seemed like the tax version of Al Capone’s safe with Geraldo Rivera. What was particularly odd is that MSNBC was “all in” — even after seeing that there was little there. Maddow led with a long list of things we want to know from Trump’s tax return. But none of those things were in the return. They lined up experts who seemed a lot like the “weather center” reporters the night before covering the major snow storm in D.C. Reporters literally showed a dusting on cars in parking lots and spoke breathlessly about the possible storm that never came. The tax experts were left in the same curious position — discussing what might have been shown. As a legal commentator, I bowed out. It was like being called as a seismologists to discuss an earthquake that never happened. It is certainly true that Trump and Melania paid is a rate of less than 4 percent on their personal income — $5.3 million. However, they paid an additional $31 million under the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. They used every loophole and tactic to reduce payments but those loopholes were legal and used by many in his tax bracket.
Having said that, the White House and others went too far in raising allegations of criminal conduct by Maddow and MSNBC in reporting on the story. There was also a return to the mantra of the “dishonest media.” There was nothing dishonest in publishing the return. It was clearly overplayed but it was not dishonest to cover the leak.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the reappearance of Obama officials in the contemporary debates over surveillance and health care. Here is the column.
The United States Attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, appears to believe that he is working for a different branch of government. After Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked for the resignations of all U.S. Attorneys, a standard change of political appointees in a new Administration, Bharara reportedly indicated that President Donald Trump would have to fire him. Just as with the bizarre conduct of Sally Yates as Acting Attorney General, Bharara has shown a curious understanding of this position and his obligations as a federal officer. If these media reports are true, President Trump should immediately accommodate him and Bharara will have to explain to future employers how he justifies such an unfounded stance. [Update: Bharara has been fired]
I sincerely hope that the reports are not true or that Bharara quickly reconsiders and gets his letter of resignation in today. This is not the way to close a successful career as U.S. Attorney. In the end, I am not sure what the basis for refusing a letter of resignation is. Bharara seems a rebel without a cause.
Continue reading “Fire Me: U.S. Attorney In Manhattan Reportedly Refuses To Resign [UPDATED]”
I have great respect for Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, who remains one of the iconic figures in constitutional law and someone with whom I have had exchanges for years on legal controversies affecting this country. While I was not surprised to see that we disagreed on a constitutional issue related to President Donald Trump, I was surprised to see that he took literally a comment that I made as a joke about impeachable tweets on Morning Joe recently. Tribe ironically responded in a series of tweets to the comment. The more serious problem is that I considered the suggestions of impeachment over Trump’s criticism of President Obama to be laughable. They clearly are not to Professor Tribe. It is something of a reversal of roles since both Tribe and I testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings where he suggested a narrower definition of the constitutional standard while I argued that Clinton could be impeached for an act of perjury.
Continue reading “Impeachable Tweets: A Response To Professor Tribe”
While most Democratic senators have been somewhat circumspect in characterizing the testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions as “inaccurate” or “misleading,” Minnesota Sen. Al Franken yesterday publicly accused Franken of perjury. It is a weighty charge that I have previously said would be highly difficult to actually prosecute.
Continue reading “Sen. Al Franken Accuses Sessions Of Perjury”
With the chorus of calls for an “independent counsel” or “special prosecutor” to investigate the Russian hacking scandal, there has been one element that remains rather ambiguous: what is the specific crime to be investigated? Clearly there is the hacking but that crime is well-known and was committed by Russians who are unlikely to be subject to any real investigation. A special counsel, as opposed to a bipartisan commission, would require the articulation of a crime and the basis for the investigation. I am all in favor of independent investigations of this and other issues. However, if we are going to move beyond a special commission to special counsel we need to have more evidence and a notion of what we are investigating. That may come but we are not there yet. Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the subject — and the moral outrage over hacking.
Continue reading “Hacking and the Politics of Moral Outrage”
As often seems the case in Washington, the controversy surrounding the meetings of then Senator Jeff Sessions with the Russian Ambassador has quickly descended into a feeding frenzy. When interviewed shortly after the disclosure, I stated that Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself and clarify his testimony. Late this afternoon, Sessions promised to do precisely that. However, the over-hearted rhetoric has continued with calls for Sessions to resign or even be criminally charged. People are getting ahead of their skis on this issue, particularly in claiming that this is the same type of controversy that led to the criminal charges against former Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst.
Continue reading “Sessions Recuses Himself From Any Russian Investigation”