George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley laid into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying that her recent comments on voter identification belied her &#8220;contempt&#8221; for everyday Americans.
&#8220;Having Hillary Clinton talk about the lives of &#8216;real people&#8217; is about as authentic as a Chuck Schumer lesson on backyard grilling,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/2066129927250804868">Turley began</a>, adding a jab at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for good measure. &#8220;Despite 83% of Americans favoring voter ID, Hillary declared, &#8216;most real people don’t have, and most older people, and most rural people don’t have&#8217; such IDs.&#8221;
Turley went on to argue that Clinton&#8217;s comments didn&#8217;t reveal anything other than her apparent belief that those &#8220;rural people&#8221; and real Americans would be lost without the political class acting — and making decisions — on their behalf.
&#8220;The only value of these interviews is the insight of how the establishment and elite view the rest of the United States as knuckle-dragging, childlike creatures who are helpless without their guidance. It is not the inherent conceit but the contempt that is so striking,&#8221; Turley explained.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8230;Last week, I spoke with a former California poll worker who said that most people still automatically produce their IDs. They were trained to tell people not to show any identification and told to refuse to look at the IDs when they were offered.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/2066133442530615803?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Last week, I spoke with a former California poll worker who said that most people still automatically produce their IDs. They were trained to tell people not to show any identification and told to refuse to look at the IDs when they were offered,&#8221; Turley added.
During the interview Turley referenced, Clinton claimed that Republicans were trying to &#8220;undermine voting&#8221; and to &#8220;kick people off voting rolls.&#8221; She then went on to argue that rural and older Americans did not have the kind of identification that President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration wanted to require — and insinuated that they would struggle to obtain it.
&#8220;They&#8217;re trying to demand forms of identification that most real people don&#8217;t have, and most older people, and most rural people don&#8217;t have,&#8221; she said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
HILLARY CLINTON INSULTS RURAL &amp; OLDER VOTERS AGAIN
&#8220;They&#8217;re trying to demand forms of identification that most real people don&#8217;t have, and most older people, and most rural people don&#8217;t have.&#8221;
Deplorables 2.0? Hillary still hates everyday Americans. <a href="https://t.co/cOtL7C9Dkg">pic.twitter.com/cOtL7C9Dkg</a>
— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) <a href="https://x.com/RichSementa/status/2065862369247363074?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;They&#8217;re certainly redistricting to make it difficult to elect black representatives or Latino representatives or Democrats,&#8221; she continued, making no mention of the gerrymandering being done in blue states like Illinois, where Republicans have been shut out of congressional seats almost entirely despite Trump winning just over 43% of the vote in 2024. &#8220;So that means we have to be even more intentional in showing up and voting.&#8221;

Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton’s Portrait Unveiled At The State Department

Jonathan Turley Slams Hillary Clinton Over ‘Contempt’ For Everyday Americans

Jonathan Turley Slams Hillary Clinton Over 'Contempt' For Everyday Americans

Americans

Hillary Clinton

Jonathan Turley

Voter ID

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on President Donald Trump&#8217;s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, law professor and commentator Jonathan Turley pointed out that the court&#8217;s three liberal justices sounded like Constitutional originalists when approaching the issue.
Turley told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that a &#8220;hilarious aspect&#8221; of the oral arguments was &#8220;to hear the liberal justices, who rarely allow the language of the Constitution to stand in the way of a preferred interpretation.&#8221; Turley added that the court&#8217;s three liberal justices &#8220;seemed to be channeling&#8221; the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia when they pushed back on the Trump administration&#8217;s arguments.
Turley said liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson often argued on Wednesday that the court must look at &#8220;original intent.&#8221;
&#8220;That obviously played to the conservative justices,&#8221; Turley continued, arguing that the way the arguments played out &#8220;is benefitting the Left here.&#8221;
The high court appeared skeptical of the administration&#8217;s defense of Trump&#8217;s executive order limiting birthright citizenship. Even conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett pushed back on some of Solicitor General John Sauer&#8217;s arguments.
The case centers on the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, with the White House arguing that the amendment “has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.&#8217;”
The groups challenging Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship argued that the 14th Amendment&#8217;s exclusions for birthright citizenship only apply to children of foreign diplomats and babies born to enemy invaders or occupiers. The White House views the phrase &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; as providing a more expansive definition of who is excluded from birthright citizenship.
Trump, who attended the oral arguments on Wednesday, said, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Birthright citizenship often benefits migrants who cross the border illegally and give birth to children on U.S. soil.
Turley agreed with Trump&#8217;s assessment, calling America&#8217;s birthright citizenship policy &#8220;perfectly insane.&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s why very few countries accept birthright citizenship,&#8221; he added. &#8220;The difficulty with this case is that it&#8217;s hard to really justify the policy when you look at what&#8217;s happening. In China alone, hundreds of these tourism sites are sending people over for the sole purpose of having children here. Only a moronic nation would allow that type of industry to flourish.&#8221;
Much of Wednesday&#8217;s arguments focused on the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled 6-2 that a man born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents automatically became a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. While the 1898 ruling went in favor of applying the 14th Amendment to babies of foreigners, the Trump administration has argued that the court&#8217;s decision in Wong Kim Ark set up a clear distinction between legal “resident aliens” and illegal immigrants who are domiciled in a foreign nation and subject to deportation.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan

Jonathan Turley Highlights ‘Hilarious Aspect’ Of How Liberal Justices View Birthright Citizenship

birthright citizenship

Supreme Court

I have <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/16/sixth-circuit/">previously written</a> about D.A. v. Tri-County Area Schools, one of the worst free speech decisions to come out of the appellate courts in years. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a school ban on high school students wearing “Let’s Go Brandon!” sweatshirts. Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in a deeply flawed holding that, under the “vulgarity exception,” the action was constitutional. The Supreme Court needs to grant review in this case and reverse this obnoxious decision.
As previously discussed, “Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against media bias. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver <a href="https://thehill.com/person/brandon-brown">Brandon Brown</a> after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/05/yankee-doodling-the-media-how-lets-go-brandon-became-a-rallying-cry-against-news-bias/">“Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.</a>
In this case, an assistant principal (Andrew Buikema) and a teacher (Wendy Bradford) “ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts” for allegedly breaking the school dress code. However, other students were allowed to wear political apparel supporting other causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”
The district dress code states the following:
<blockquote>
Students and parents have the right to determine a student’s dress, except when the school administration determines a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. The dress code may be enforced by any staff member.
</blockquote>
The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”
The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words. Nevertheless, “D.A.” was stopped in the hall by Buikema and told that his “Let’s Go Brandon!” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”
The district court showed an equally dismissive view of the free speech rights of these students, including that the phrase could “reasonably be interpreted” as profane. That was upheld by the Sixth Circuit in its 2-1 decision.
Judge John Bush offered an excellent dissent, stating:
<blockquote>
[T]he speech here—”Let’s Go Brandon!”—is neither vulgar nor profane on its face, and therefore does not fall into [the Fraser] exception. To the contrary, the phrase is purely political speech. It criticizes a political official—the type of expression that sits “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” No doubt, its euphemistic meaning was offensive to some, particularly those who supported President Biden. But offensive political speech is allowed in school, so long as it does not cause disruption under Tinker. As explained below, Tinker is the standard our circuit applied to cases involving Confederate flag T-shirts and a hat depicting an AR-15 rifle—depictions arguably more offensive than “Let’s Go Brandon!” …
The majority says the sweatshirts’ slogan is crude. But neither the phrase itself nor any word in it has ever been bleeped on television, radio, or other media. Not one of the “seven words you can never say on television” appears in it . Instead, the phrase has been used to advance political arguments, primarily in opposition to President Biden’s policies and secondarily to complain about the way liberal-biased media treats conservatives. It serves as a coded critique—a sarcastic catchphrase meant to express frustration, resentment, and discontent with political opponents. The phrase has been used by members of Congress during debate. And even President Biden himself, attempting to deflect criticism, “agreed” with the phrase.
We cannot lose sight of a key fact: the students’ sweatshirts do not say “F*ck Joe Biden.” Instead, they bear a sanitized phrase made famous by sports reporter Kelli Stavast while interviewing NASCAR race winner Brandon Brown at the Talladega Superspeedway. The reporter said the crowd behind them was yelling “Let’s go, Brandon!” She did not report the vulgar phrase that was actually being chanted. The Majority even concedes Stavast may have used the sanitized phrase to “put a fig leaf over the chant’s vulgarity.” That is telling….
</blockquote>
The Sixth Circuit opinion constitutes a significant infringement on the free speech rights of students. I readily admit that I am critical of some past cases, including Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Juneau-Douglas High School could suspend student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. In my view, the courts have honored Tinker largely in the breach in such cases.
FIRE has filed the petition below, and hopefully, the justices will add this case to the docket.
Here is the petition: <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-D.A.-v.-Tri-County-Area-Schools.pdf">Petition for Writ of Certiorari – D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools</a>.
 * * *
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 is a New York Times best-selling author of &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668047047?tag=simonsayscom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668047047?tag%3Dsimonsayscom&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1775041193122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1yfRPM-SD7lTbUvS3kC_vo">The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage</a>&#8221; and &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FCDSN1KR/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RRwQP-jxib6FGPIATmKf_-qZ54EqdtHH96MILgFFNEu2d_chUIjFQbBNWZj6-YWIsRTxEeuGYCTw-gDvcdUE1puVoYeX2uBJyqcXA64EqxaA3kXW04dbyRE6t7mOEnrcSOf8BIA7KP47sQttP-6j4qWXwt_gUgP9AJ6jJ1HWnqU62QYxnVkcOQhwCaeyp8o8.-FQ90bYCtRhnfQk9vLhvb1kV2q0kmzaKPZqwWwUateA&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;qid=1749518291&amp;refinements=p_27%3AJonathan+Turley&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FCDSN1KR/ref%3Dsr_1_5?dib%3DeyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RRwQP-jxib6FGPIATmKf_-qZ54EqdtHH96MILgFFNEu2d_chUIjFQbBNWZj6-YWIsRTxEeuGYCTw-gDvcdUE1puVoYeX2uBJyqcXA64EqxaA3kXW04dbyRE6t7mOEnrcSOf8BIA7KP47sQttP-6j4qWXwt_gUgP9AJ6jJ1HWnqU62QYxnVkcOQhwCaeyp8o8.-FQ90bYCtRhnfQk9vLhvb1kV2q0kmzaKPZqwWwUateA%26dib_tag%3Dse%26qid%3D1749518291%26refinements%3Dp_27%253AJonathan%2BTurley%26s%3Dbooks%26sr%3D1-5&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1775041193122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0iutNbOSt_wYahJ5z1jjFD">Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution</a>&#8220;. 
This article is <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2026/03/31/supreme-court-asked-to-hear-lets-go-brandon-case/">republished for the Daily Wire</a> with the author’s permission from JonathanTurley.org.

Annual Pro Life Gathering, The March For Life Takes Place In Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court To Rule Whether Schools Can Ban ‘Let’s Go Brandon’

Supreme Court To Rule Whether Schools Can Ban 'Let’s Go Brandon'

Constitutional Law

Free Speech

Let's Go Brandon

SCOTUS

The House Oversight Committee voted on Monday to hold former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas — and eight Democrats voted against the measure.
The eight Democrats who voted against — meaning they voted to allow the Clintons to ignore the subpoenas without penalty — were Reps. Wesley Bell (D-MO), Shontel Brown (D-OH), Robert Garcia (D-CA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), and James Walkinshaw (D-VA).
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley laid out his thoughts on the situation, naming the Democrats who voted against efforts to hold the Clintons to account.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8230;Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee: Wesley Bell; Shontel Brown; Robert Garcia; Ro Khanna; Kweisi Mfume; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Suhas Subramanyam; and James Walkinsaw.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/2014315184953668025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Clintons were issued subpoenas after some of the most recent photos and documents released pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act shed a rather unflattering light on former President Clinton&#8217;s associations with the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
As some noted, Rep. Ro Khanna has been particularly insistent on getting to the bottom of everything and getting a full release of the Epstein documents — a fact that caused several eyebrows to raise when he was also among the Democrats suggesting it was fine for the Clintons to disregard congressional subpoenas on the matter.
The Clintons <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/republicans-seek-to-hold-bill-clinton-in-contempt-after-he-refuses-to-testify-on-epstein">responded</a> to the subpoenas with a lengthy letter explaining why they should not have to comply with requests to submit to the legal process.
The Clintons said in the letter that they believed the subpoenas to be “invalid” and had already given Congress all the information they had.
“There is no plausible explanation for what you are doing other than partisan politics,” the letter said.
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) made it clear that he was not impressed, saying, “They have had five months to comply with this … We expect to hear from Bill Clinton, he is not above the law.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Here Are The Eight Democrats Who Voted To Allow The Clintons To Evade Justice

Bill Clinton

Congress

Epstein Files

Jeffrey Epstein

Media

Politics

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley let loose on former Rep. Robert Francis &#8220;Beto&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke on Monday, predicting that his weekend rant on the Texas redistricting fight was likely to come back and bite him in the backside.
Turley said that O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s admonition to fellow Democrats — namely that it was time to say &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/f-the-rules-beto-goes-off-the-rails-says-dems-will-win-whatever-it-takes">f*** the rules</a>&#8221; and do whatever it takes to win — could be a liability when it came to an imminent court battle. O&#8217;Rourke is currently fighting a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-blocks-betos-attempt-to-funnel-cash-to-awol-texas-dems">temporary restraining order</a> issued pursuant to his efforts to funnel money to Texas legislators who disrupted a special session by breaking quorum and fleeing the state.
&#8220;Beto O&#8217;Rourke clearly believes that the combination of profanity and illegality is just the ticket for Democrats in 2026: &#8216;F**k the rules, we are going to win whatever it takes,'&#8221; Turley began in a thread posted to X. &#8220;After a ruling against him in court, he seems to have dispensed with democracy in favor of anarchy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Beto O’Rourke clearly believes that the combination of profanity and illegality is just the ticket for Democrats in 2026: “F**k the rules, we are going to win whatever it takes.” After a ruling against him in court, he seems to have dispensed with democracy in favor of anarchy.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1954657694658297951?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 10, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Turley gently reminded O&#8217;Rourke that the now-viral video of his comments was likely to make its way into the hands of opposing counsel — and that it could be used to bolster the assertion that he was intentionally funding lawlessness.
&#8220;As his lawyers appeal the ruling of the Texas judge over his group&#8217;s alleged funding of Democratic legislators who fled the state, his statement is likely to be highlighted in opposing briefs to show an utter disregard for the law and contempt for the judicial system,&#8221; Turley pointed out.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8230;O&#8217;Rourke appears to follow the John McEnroe school of appealing adverse rulings. The problem is that O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s court tantrum will only undermine his case and his cause going forward. &#8220;F**k the rules&#8221; is hardly a compelling argument for most judges.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1954660821440634946?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 10, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;O&#8217;Rourke appears to follow the John McEnroe school of appealing adverse rulings,&#8221; Turley added. &#8220;The problem is that O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s court tantrum will only undermine his case and his cause going forward. &#8216;F**k the rules&#8217; is hardly a compelling argument for most judges.&#8221;
The former Texas Rep. called on Democrats in blue states to do whatever they could to manipulate congressional maps for maximum advantage, saying that if his party regained power, they would pull out all the stops to ram through as many radical policies as possible: &#8220;We&#8217;re gonna drive that car like we stole it.&#8221;

House Committee Examines US Park Police Reaction To Protesters At Lafayette Park

‘Hardly A Compelling Argument’: Jonathan Turley Says Beto’s ‘F*** The Rules’ Rant Will Backfire

'Hardly A Compelling Argument': Jonathan Turley Says Beto's 'F*** The Rules' Rant Will Backfire

Beto O'Rourke

Courts

Redistricting

Texas

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley revealed who he believes is most vulnerable to prosecution over the Russian collusion hoax aimed at destroying President Donald Trump: former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan.
Turley joined host Sandra Smith on &#8220;America Reports,&#8221; and she began by bringing up a conversation he&#8217;d had the day prior with former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) – a conversation that centered around the idea that some of those involved in pushing the Russia collusion narrative had lied under oath about it and what steps the court might take to address that.
&#8220;I want to go back to our conversation yesterday on Tulsi Gabbard. She showed up at the White House press briefing yesterday. She shook things up, citing this new declassified intel that shows the Obama administration was politicizing intelligence,&#8221; Smith began. &#8220;Jason Chaffetz joined you and went off on this on America Reports yesterday.&#8221;
Smith then cut to Chaffetz who had said the day before, &#8220;Anytime I&#8217;ve ever heard of somebody lying to a court, the court takes care of itself. There&#8217;s there are repercussions to that. So when the when the government lies to the FISA court, where is Chief Justice Roberts on this? Where is the court? How come the court is not going back? I&#8217;m not an attorney. Jonathan Turley&#8217;s gonna have to take this. Why isn&#8217;t the court demanding that there are repercussions for those people that they bogusly signed these warrants?&#8221;
&#8220;And then we ran out of time and the show was over, so can we get your response, sir?&#8221; Smith asked Turley. &#8220;Where is the court on this?&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Turley: Brennan may be most vulnerable to charges:
&#8220;He’s like a 30 point buck out in the open.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/qUPkW36gal">pic.twitter.com/qUPkW36gal</a>
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1948473577071583406?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 24, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Well, Jason has a very good point here, and he&#8217;s walked the walk. He&#8217;s been there in Congress and trying to get this information. And it does appear that a couple of these figures may have committed perjury,&#8221; Turley agreed.
&#8220;I think the most vulnerable may be Brennan, who&#8217;s like a 30-point buck now out in the open. I mean, this stuff goes directly to information that he gave to Congress. It seems to be in contradiction. And so there are real questions here,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I mean, people talk about, well, you can&#8217;t charge Obama. That&#8217;s very likely the case. He&#8217;s probably protected. But these individuals, whether it&#8217;s Comey or Brennan, are not protected from perjury charges if the statute of limitations has not run. They are more likely to be called again to repeat prior testimony.&#8221;

US-POLITICS-HEARING-POLICE

’30-Point Buck Out In The Open’: Jonathan Turley Reveals Who’s Vulnerable To Russiagate Prosecution

'30-Point Buck Out In The Open': Jonathan Turley Reveals Who's Vulnerable To Russiagate Prosecution

Barack Obama

Donald Trump

James Comey

John Brennan

Russia Collusion Hoax

Russiagate

George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley laid into House Democrats on Thursday after the lower chamber voted to censure Rep. Al Green (D-TX) for disrupting President Donald Trump&#8217;s address two days prior.
Turley spared no feelings as he declared the party had truly hit &#8220;rock bottom&#8221; when members doubled down on Green&#8217;s antics, adding, &#8220;The vote reduced the Democrats from federal legislators to the level of graffiti artists.&#8221;
&#8220;Green was censured, but only 9 Democrats joined in the motion. The Democrats then refused to clear the well and disrupted Speaker Johnson&#8217;s efforts to complete the censure process. The sound you heard was the Democratic party hitting rock bottom in this disgraceful display,&#8221; Turley began.
The disruption he alluded to involved a number of Democrats singing &#8220;We Shall Overcome&#8221; as Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) attempted to close out the censure process.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Faced with the first member to be expelled during a joint session address, the Democrats followed a censure over his disruption by disrupting the business of the House. Johnson showed admirable restraint and put the house into recess&#8230;
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1897680200294445379?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Faced with the first member to be expelled during a joint session address, the Democrats followed a censure over his disruption by disrupting the business of the House,&#8221; Turley continued, adding, &#8220;Johnson showed admirable restraint and put the house into recess.&#8221;
&#8220;With this vote and the subsequent protest in the well, the party has cut itself adrift from any principle of decorum or civility,&#8221; Turley said, and then quickly corrected his numbers regarding the vote. &#8220;It turns out that only 8 Democrats voted for the motion. Two voted present. Green said he would do it again and the rest of the party supported him.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;As the Democrats sang &quot;we shall overcome,&quot; some may ask how a party can overcome this final surrender to pure rage. The vote reduced the Democrats from federal legislators to the level of graffiti artists. It is all not performative rage.
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1897681512142688336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;As the Democrats sang &#8216;we shall overcome,&#8217; some may ask how a party can overcome this final surrender to pure rage. The vote reduced the Democrats from federal legislators to the level of graffiti artists. It is all not [sic] performative rage,&#8221; he concluded.
Turley had previewed the censure vote earlier in the day, noting that it was a clear opportunity for Democrats to put some distance between the whole of the party and Rep. Green&#8217;s antics — which were condemned by pundits on both sides of the aisle — during Tuesday&#8217;s joint session address.
&#8220;The House will soon vote on the censure of Rep. Al Green for disrupting the Trump address to the joint session of Congress. Every member should vote for the censure. This will be a defining moment for Democrats: a choice between rage and reason; lunacy and civility,&#8221; Turley said, noting that he had long been critical of members of both parties when they participated in such disruptions.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The House will soon vote on the censure of Rep. Al Green for disrupting the Trump address to the joint session of Congress. Every member should vote for the censure. This will be a defining moment for Democrats: a choice between rage and reason; lunacy and civility&#8230;
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1897662322195431842?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

House Judiciary Committee Holds First Impeachment Inquiry Hearing

Jonathan Turley Scorches Democrats In Brutal Dissection Of Al Green Censure Process

Democrats

House Democrats

Prominent legal scholar and George Washington University Law School professor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/jonathan-turley" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jonathan Turley</a> on Friday criticized Judge Juan Merchan&#8217;s recent decisions in the hush-money case against President-elect Donald Trump as the &#8220;final cathartic act for lawfare warriors.&#8221;
As highlighted by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-judge-orders-that-trump-be-sentenced-in-hush-money-case-before-inauguration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Wire</a>, Judge Merchan on Friday dismissed a Trump bid to have the hush-money case dismissed due partly to a U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. Instead, the Democrat judge assigned Trump&#8217;s sentencing for January 10, ten days before his inauguration, and signaled that he&#8217;ll impose an &#8220;unconditional discharge.&#8221;
Turley explained that the decision effectively provides a &#8220;talking point&#8221; for the anti-Trump media on Inauguration Day &#8212; that Trump&#8217;s a convicted felon &#8212; but it also allows Trump a path to an appeal.
&#8220;Judge Merchan just set Trump for a sentencing shortly before his inauguration. As some of us predicted, he is indicating that he will impose an unconditional discharge without jail or probation,&#8221; Turley explained on X. &#8220;The sentence will finalize the case and allow for an appeal.&#8221;
However, Turley noted, the decision also labels Trump &#8220;a convicted felon just before he is sworn into office,&#8221; which the law professor said was &#8220;the final cathartic act for lawfare warriors.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8230;The sentence will finalize the case and allow for an appeal. However, it would also label the President-elect a convicted felon just before he is sworn into office. It is the final cathartic act for lawfare warriors&#8230;
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1875293919950582002?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2025</a></blockquote>
&#8220;Merchan will supply the talking point for the inauguration coverage as reporters repeat the mantra of the historic status of Trump being sworn in as a convicted felon,&#8221; Turley said.
At the same time, Trump &#8220;will also finally be able to see an appeal of his case,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;While there are low expectations for the New York court system, the sentencing will allow the full array of alleged errors by Merchan to be placed before appellate judges.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8230;we will also finally be able to see an appeal of his case. While there are low expectations for the New York court system, the sentencing will allow the full array of alleged errors by Merchan to be placed before appellate judges.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1875294537368924391?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2025</a></blockquote>
“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendants opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” Judge Merchan wrote in his ruling.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-orders-trump-sentenced-hush-money-case-jan-10-says-wont-incarcer-rcna186189" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reacted</a> to the decision on Friday, calling it &#8220;a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence. This lawless case should have never been brought and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.&#8221;
&#8220;There should be no sentencing, and President Trump will continue fighting against these hoaxes until they are all dead,” Cheung added.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fani-willis-disqualified-from-trump-election-case-what-does-that-mean-for-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fani Willis Disqualified From Trump Election Case. What Does That Mean For Trump?</a>

Legal Scholar Rips Judge Merchan’s Sentencing Decision, Explains What It Means For Trump

Juan Merchan

President Joe Biden said on Sunday that all Americans could do better if they aspired to be like the late 39th President, Jimmy Carter, who passed away over the weekend — and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley suggested that Biden might do well to heed his own advice.
Biden spoke to the nation on Sunday after reports confirmed Carter&#8217;s death, saying in part, &#8220;Some look at Jimmy Carter and see a man of a bygone era with honesty and character. Faith and humility mattered, but I don&#8217;t believe it&#8217;s a bygone era. We&#8217;d all do well to try to be more like Jimmy Carter.&#8221;
Turley responded to Biden&#8217;s challenge by pointing out one very specific instance in which Biden had not practiced what he preached: the sweeping pardon he&#8217;d issued to his embattled son Hunter Biden, despite repeatedly stating that he would not do so.
&#8220;President Biden is offering lessons on what presidents could learn from the late President Carter. He is certainly right about setting the standard for civility and decency, but here is one that Biden missed: Carter did not pardon his brother Billy in a corruption scandal,&#8221; Turley began.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;While criminal charges were not brought, there were lingering questions about the $200,000 &quot;loan&quot; from Libya and allegations that he paid back only $1000. There were also allegations of other payments in influence-peddling allegations. Sound familiar?&#8230;
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1873671663386231055?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 30, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Turley then laid out a series of &#8220;questions&#8221; that had been raised regarding foreign entanglements that could have landed Carter&#8217;s brother Billy in hot water: &#8220;While criminal charges were not brought, there were lingering questions about the $200,000 &#8216;loan&#8217; from Libya and allegations that he paid back only $1000. There were also allegations of other payments in influence-peddling allegations. Sound familiar?&#8221;
&#8220;Unlike President Biden who lied repeatedly to the voters in denying that (1) Hunter had any dealings with the Chinese, (2) he ever met his son&#8217;s clients, and (3) knew of any of these dealings, Carter told the truth to the American people,&#8221; Turley continued, laying out several instances in which Biden had been caught lying to cover up his own involvement in Hunter&#8217;s business dealings.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;Here is Carter&#39;s statement at the time: &quot;I am deeply concerned that Billy has received funds from Libya and that he may be under obligation to Libya. These facts will govern my relationship with Billy as long as I am president. Billy has had no influence on U.S. policy or…
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1873672372319830223?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 30, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Turley then noted that Carter had addressed the situation head on, sharing the late president&#8217;s statement regarding his brother: &#8220;I am deeply concerned that Billy has received funds from Libya and that he may be under obligation to Libya. These facts will govern my relationship with Billy as long as I am president. Billy has had no influence on U.S. policy or actions concerning Libya in the past, and he will have no influence in the future.&#8221;
Turley proceeded to compare the two directly, adding, &#8220;Instead of showing Carter&#8217;s honesty, Biden lied for years and then pardoned his own son after repeatedly denying that he would ever do so during the campaign. He pardoned his son for any crimes committed over a ten-year period, including potential crimes that many believe implicated the President himself in the multimillion influence-peddling operation.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;That record is precisely why &quot;Some look at Jimmy Carter and see a man of a bygone era with honesty and character.&quot; They look at Biden himself and say &quot;We&#39;d all do well to try to be more like Jimmy Carter.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/pkNZaYBrjv">https://t.co/pkNZaYBrjv</a>
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1873673751247913101?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 30, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;That record is precisely why &#8216;Some look at Jimmy Carter and see a man of a bygone era with honesty and character.&#8217; They look at Biden himself and say, &#8216;We&#8217;d all do well to try to be more like Jimmy Carter,'&#8221; Turley concluded, making it clear that he believed Biden would have done well to heed his own advice.

Jonathan Turley Torches Biden In Brutal Comparison To The Late Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter

Joe Biden

George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley took aim at the 2024 Democratic presidential ticket — which now includes Vice President Kamala Harris for president and Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) for vice president — saying that the pair showed a &#8220;shocking disregard for free speech.&#8221;
Turley shared his thoughts in an opinion piece for The Hill published Saturday, in which he warned that a Harris-Walz administration would be a &#8220;perfect nightmare for free speech advocates&#8221; and would likely lead to more censorship rather than less.
&#8220;Harris has long supported anti-free speech policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free speech advocates. Walz has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech but a shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Harris has long supported anti-free speech policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free speech advocates. Walz has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech but a shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment. <a href="https://t.co/Cll8BaoP3U">https://t.co/Cll8BaoP3U</a>
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1822346683981742582?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 10, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;For over three years, the Biden-Harris administration has sustained an unrelenting attack on the freedom of speech, from supporting a massive censorship system (described by a federal court as an &#8216;Orwellian Ministry of Truth&#8217;) to funding blacklisting operations targeting groups and individuals with opposing views,&#8221; Turley wrote.
He went on to reference the Biden administration&#8217;s efforts to combat &#8220;disinformation&#8221; on social media by coordinating efforts to silence dissenting voices on those platforms.
&#8220;President Biden made censorship a central part of his legacy, even accusing social media companies of &#8216;killing people&#8217; for failing to increase levels of censorship,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;Democrats in Congress pushed that agenda by demanding censorship on subjects ranging from climate change to gender identity — even to banking policy — in the name of combatting &#8216;disinformation.'&#8221;
Turley pointed out the fact that Harris — who has often bragged about being in the room as Biden has made the biggest decisions of his presidency — appears to have been fully supportive of Biden&#8217;s efforts to curtail speech, and then noted that the addition of Walz only served to make things worse.
Walz, who claimed &#8220;there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,&#8221; completes &#8220;a perfect nightmare&#8221; for any American who values the protections guaranteed under the First Amendment.

‘A Perfect Nightmare’: Jonathan Turley Blasts Harris-Walz Ticket’s ‘Shocking Disregard For Free Speech’

'A Perfect Nightmare': Jonathan Turley Blasts Harris-Walz Ticket's 'Shocking Disregard For Free Speech'

First Amendment

Kamala Harris

Tim Walz

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/hunter-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hunter Biden</a> being found guilty of felony weapons charges this week changes things for him moving forward in his other criminal cases.
A federal grand jury convicted Hunter Biden, 54, on all three felony counts, including lying to a federally licensed firearms dealer, making a false claim on a federal firearms background check form, and being in possession of an illegally obtained firearm. Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison for his crimes and up to $750,000 in fines.
Turley said that the verdict changes things for Hunter Biden in his upcoming federal trial in California for alleged tax crimes.
“His counsel has got to refocus on that tax case, they are going into that case now with a convicted felon,” Turley said. “Now, these are very different types of claims, but there is a third front developing. Congress just referred what I consider to be a very strong case for a perjury investigation of Hunter Biden after his testimony before Congress.”
Turley said that the expectation exists that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was nominated by Biden, is &#8220;going to basically scuttle that referral.&#8221;
&#8220;But the problem is that the House seems to have Hunter Biden dead to rights … on those perjury claims,” Turley said. “It is hard to see how what he said before Congress was true. It is a much more serious offense. It is currently sitting on the desk of Merrick Garland.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712932862202000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0plT8RRdMy9XUpIhocnjQS">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Turley said that the allegations in the tax case are &#8220;much more serious&#8221; and could be enhanced now since Hunter Biden is a convicted felon.
&#8220;As for Hunter Biden, this may prove the least of his problems, you know, the chances that he goes to jail, probably are low, but I would not dismiss them,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;The problem with a jury nullification strategy is it can tick off a judge. This was a case of overwhelming evidence, and it seemed pretty clear to everyone that the defense was going for a nullification. That may not sit well with the judge. But even if she imposed jail time, it would be relatively short, the tax case, not so much. That is a much more serious set of allegations where jail time can be more substantial.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
WATCH: Jonathan Turley explains how Hunter Biden is going to appeal his guilty verdict: Hunter is &#8220;challenging this gun law that his father has been a great advocate of and has actually called for greater punishment for these types of gun violations.&#8221;<a href="https://t.co/L2N8PUzdky">pic.twitter.com/L2N8PUzdky</a>
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1800613733774889393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2024</a></blockquote>

Law Expert: Hunter Biden’s Legal Woes About To Get ‘Much More Serious’

Hunter Biden

Merrick Garland

U.S.

Legal scholar and George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley published a <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/31/trump-is-convicted-what-comes-next/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blog post</a> on Friday morning, explaining what comes next after former President Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts by a Manhattan jury, a verdict that pushed the American political and legal system into uncharted territory.
Turley, who was outside the Manhattan courthouse when the verdict was handed down on Thursday afternoon, wrote that Trump&#8217;s legal team will appeal, adding that he believes &#8220;convictions will be overturned.&#8221;
&#8220;Indeed, moments like this require us to take a leap of faith in a nation that remains committed to the rule of law. Manhattan is neither the entirety of the country nor the legal system. I believe that these convictions will be overturned, but it will take time,&#8221; Turley wrote. &#8220;Judge Merchan committed, in my view, layers of reversible error. Eventually, this case may reach the United States Supreme Court.&#8221;
The lawyer said he doesn&#8217;t see the Supreme Court stepping &#8220;directly&#8221; into the case since it previously rejected Trump&#8217;s attempt to expedite the review of Special Counsel Jack Smith&#8217;s federal prosecutions.
&#8220;It will work first through the New York appellate system,&#8221; he wrote.
Other legal experts, such as Heritage Foundation fellow Roger Severino and commentator Mark Levin, said that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/can-the-supreme-court-intervene-after-trumps-conviction-legal-experts-say-yes?topStoryPosition=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Supreme Court could intervene</a> after Trump&#8217;s conviction, arguing that the former president&#8217;s right to a fair trial was violated.
As for the immediate next steps for the former president, Turley wrote, &#8220;Trump will have to meet with a probation officer for an interview. That officer will make recommendations to the court.&#8221;
While Trump faces prison time, Turley said such a sentence would be &#8220;ridiculous.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1717170739895000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1Ps3XbgPF2rL6bDpL8t5Cu">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;There is a possibility of a jail sentence for felonies that come with up to four years for each offense. Any jail sentences would almost certainly run concurrently. However, any jail sentence would be ridiculous in Manhattan for an elderly first-offender in a non-violent offense,&#8221; he wrote.
&#8220;It is much more likely that Merchan will impose a sentence without a jail sentence, though with fines. The most appropriate, in my view, would be a conditional discharge that requires Trump not to commit a new crime or face potential imprisonment,&#8221; Turley added. &#8220;Merchan could also tailor a sentence to require home confinement or even weekend jailing. Those options would raise serious conflicts with his campaigning and obviously, if elected, serving as president. Even the probation process will be awkward since a convicted defendant ordinarily has to get approval for any travel outside of the state from his probation officer.&#8221;
Turley warned, however, that nothing should be ruled out since Merchan&#8217;s previous rulings in the trial have been head-scratching.
&#8220;After his ruling in this trial, it is impossible to rule anything out,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;However, any jail sentence would add even more outrage to an abuse of the criminal law system.&#8221;

Turley Weighs In On ‘What Comes Next’ Following Trump’s Guilty Verdict

Turley Weighs In On 'What Comes Next' Following Trump's Guilty Verdict

Court

New York

Menu