In his long-awaited testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony proved as casual as his appearance in an open shirt from his home office. Comey was hammered with embarrassing findings of errors under his watch in the handling of the Russian investigation, including the reliance on information that FBI agents warned might be Russian disinformation supplied by a Russian agent. After years of investigation, the FBI was unable to show that a single Trump official conspired or colluded with the Russians. Instead, investigations found extensive errors, irregular and criminal conduct, and statements of intense bias by key FBI figures. Yet, Comey proceeded to give what amounted to a series of shrugs in either denying any recollection of such information or deflecting responsibility to others. Continue reading “What Rings Comey’s Bell: The Former FBI Director’s Casual Testimony Confirms the Worst About His Tenure”
Category: Media
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the sentencing hearing of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Unfortunately, in the hearing, Judge Emmet Sullivan fulfilled the expectations of the D.C. Circuit panel that ordered him to dismiss the charge without further delay. That decision was reversed en banc but only because the court decided (as many of us argued) that Sullivan should be allowed to issue a final decision before an appellant review of his handling of the case. The en banc court did not rule in favor of his controversial comments or orders. Yet, in the hearing, Sullivan declared “Suffice it to say, the case was remanded to me by the en banc court.” As argued below, the law is clear and, suffice it to say, Sullivan will be reversed if he follows the advice of John Gleeson. Instead, Sullivan announced that he still “has questions” and indicated that he is not prepared to issue a final decision after two years. Instead, he repeated the words of Gleeson as virtual fact like an alter ego. This is moving from the cathartic to the tragic. The Court is not just prolonging the inevitable for the ruling but the trauma for the defendant. Flynn should have been sentenced years ago and the charges dismissed months ago. A defendant should not be a vehicle of the court to express displeasure or satisfy its curiosity on public controversies. The court knows that it would be almost certainly reversed if it follows the advice of its self-appointed quasi-prosecutor Gleeson. Instead, it is continuing to refuse to rule while using the case to ask more questions about the internal decision-making at the Justice Department.
Here is column: Continue reading “It Is Time To Dismiss The Flynn Case”
Last night’s presidential debate left many of us in a deep depression over the state of our politics. Once again, the duopoly of power in this country has reduced a population of over 300 million to two subpar choices. President Donald Trump’s conduct and comments have been rightfully denounced while Biden offered little beyond not being President Trump. There were however two clear and surprising winners last night: Proud Boys and Antifa. Continue reading “Proud Boys and Antifa Emerge As The Winners From The Presidential Debate”
Louisville Metro Police Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly is reportedly moving forward with defamation actions against those who have called him a “murderer” for his role in the Breonna Taylor case. His attorney Todd McMurtry has been unclear on who would be sued for the commonly used label following the shooting of Taylor and her boyfriend Kenneth Walker. A defamation is possible but it would be highly challenging under controlling case law and this specific context. Continue reading “Does Officer Jonathan Mattingly Have A Defamation Case In The Coverage Of The Breonna Taylor Case?”
We have been discussing a crackdown on some campuses against conservative columnists and newspapers, including the firing of a conservative student columnist at Syracuse, the public condemnation of a student columnist at Georgetown, and a campaign against one of the oldest conservative student newspapers in the country at Dartmouth. Now, The Badger Herald, a student newspaper at the University of Wisconsin Madison, has dismissed columnist Tripp Grebe after he wrote a column opposing the defunding of police departments. What was equally disturbing was how the rationale for this raw act of viewpoint intolerance tracked the rationale used by the New York Times in a controversy over the column by Sen. Tom Cotton on the George Floyd protests.
A tape has surfaced of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden bizarrely claiming that he “started” at a historically black college in speaking to supporters in South Carolina during the primary. Biden has never made any mention of going to Delaware State University and it is not clear why the many reporters in attendance at the event did not ask when he attended a HBCU. Indeed, he would be the first president to claim such a distinction. He might also have been inartfully referencing his start as a politician. Alternatively, this would seem like an academic version of cultural appropriation. It would seem a valid point of clarification for the media.
Below is my column in USA Today on the growing calls for packing the Supreme Court with up to six new members as soon as the Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress and the White House. I was critical of Democratic nominee Joe Biden this week when he refused to answer a question of whether he supports this call by his running mate Kamala Harris and other Democratic leaders. Biden told reporters “It’s a legitimate question, but let me tell you why I’m not going answer…it will shift the focus.” That was an extraordinary statement since if the question was legitimate, the refusal to answer it was not. Many of us would not support a presidential candidate who supported the packing of the Court. If Biden considers this a viable option, he is not a viable candidate for many of us. This is a central issue in the presidential campaign that has been pushed by Harris and top Democrats. Yet, Biden is refusing to confirm his position. What is particularly concerning is that Biden precisely and correctly denounced court packing schemes like the one supported by this running mate. Just a year ago, he insisted “No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day.”
Here is the column: Continue reading “Destroying The Court To Save It: Democrats Wrongly Use Ginsburg To Push Court Packing Scheme”
Last night, I was finalizing my column for USA Today when one of my editors flagged my reference to the roughly 30 election-year nominations to the Supreme Court as a possible error. The New York Times ran a story declaring that there “there have been 16 Supreme Court vacancies that occurred before Election Day.” I have previously discussed glaring misstatements of cases in major media, but this was unnerving because the New York Times was suggesting that the precedent for the current nomination was roughly half as previously thought. I decided to do another rough count and, if anything, it would seem that the 29 nomination figure is arguably too low and that there appears almost twice the number cited by the New York Times. The difference appears in part counting a calendar year rather than a year from election, but that approach causes problems in comparison given the earlier early election calendars.
Today I have the pleasure of speaking at the University of Michigan as part of a Constitution Day event. I will be joined by Professor Michael Gerhardt (UNC School of Law) in discussing the history of presidential impeachments from Johnson to Trump. Both Professor Gerhardt and I testified at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment. I also served as lead defense counsel in the last judicial impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous. The event was switched to a virtual format and will be held from 4:10 to 5:30 pm ET today. You can join via Zoom at https://umich.zoom.us/j/97622039094
Continue reading “Turley To Speak At The University Of Michigan On Impeachment”
Many of us criticized statements attributed to Attorney General Bill Barr this week calling for the use of sedition laws against rioters. However, instead of raising constitutional or statutory objections, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe instead raised Barr’s Catholic faith in a completely unwarranted and unfounded tweet. The response to the reference was total silence. Not a single professor at Harvard or elsewhere chastised the use of a person’s religion in such commentary. This is not the first profane or prejudiced statement by Tribe.
Alan Dershowitz just filed a whale of a lawsuit against CNN, though it could end up beached in short order under controlling case law. The Harvard Law professor emeritus is demanding $300,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from CNN for misrepresenting his legal arguments in the Trump impeachment trial. In fairness to Dershowitz, the coverage of the trial by CNN was dreadful with intentionally and consistently slanted coverage of the evidence, standards, and arguments. However, the objections raised by Dershowitz are likely to be treated as part of the peril for high-profile figures operating in the public domain. In other words, you can complain about the weather but you cannot sue the storm. Continue reading “Dershowitz Sues CNN For $300,000,000 In Defamation Action”
There was an awkward moment this morning on Fox when President Donald Trump announced that he would have a regular appearance on Fox and Friends every week at this time. That came as obvious news to the hosts who repeatedly told the President that there is no such understanding. The exchange, however, raises a legal question of whether such a regular show with the President would run afoul of federal laws requiring equal time for political candidates. The answer is likely no but it is not clear if Joe Biden would relish a regular segment on Fox since he has largely avoided such interviews. Continue reading “Trump’s Weekly Fox Show? It Could Present Some Interesting Political and Legal Issues”
For four years, I have written about the alarming loss of neutrality and objectivity in journalism — a trend that is reflected by many polls showing that the majority of the public no longer trusts the media for fair and honest reporting. While I have regularly criticized President Donald Trump, I have also objected to unrelentingly biased reporting as well as embarrassingly soft coverage of former Vice President Joe Biden. Now, Stanford Communications Professor Emeritus Ted Glasser has publicly called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking “social justice.”
Continue reading “Stanford Journalism Professor Rejects Objectivity In Journalism”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the anti-racism demonstrations from the NFL displays to corporate campaigns to academic confessions. What is most striking about these campaigns is how little they are likely to impact opinions on racism. Indeed, the NFL displays were not only booed by fans but denounced by figures like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick as meaningless propaganda. Most people are unwilling to discuss racism honestly. Booing is a form of anonymous speech and many of those individuals would not want to speak publicly about countervailing views of racial justice or the role of the NFL in such causes. Unless we can have that honest (and mutually tolerant) discussion, few minds will be changed in these campaigns. That requires a real interest in discussing different views of racial justice and its underlying issues for social reform, not just repeating affirmations or offering confessions. Otherwise, many are tuning out these demonstrations. There is clearly a view of many that corporations “doth protest too much” and mean too little in terms of real change in attitudes on racism.
Here is the column:
Most human beings were disgusted by the murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson, the member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, in Portland. University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis is not among them. Loomis defended the killing by Michael Reinoehl, an Antifa member who appears to have stalked Danielson before gunning him down. Loomis insisted that any problem in gunning down right-wing counterprotesters was tactical not moral. Continue reading ““I See Nothing Wrong With It”: Rhode Island Professor Defends Murder Of Right-Wing Protester In Portland”