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

Jonathan Turley

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

Media

Politics

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

Congress

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

Free Speech

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

Legal experts expressed outrage on Wednesday over the instructions Judge Juan Merchan gave to the jury as it began deliberations in former President Donald Trump&#8217;s hush money case.
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy told Fox News that the instructions were not in &#8220;line with the United States Constitution&#8221; and had turned into a &#8220;make-it-up-as-you-go-along&#8221; situation.
&#8220;What’s supposed to happen in a criminal trial is a prosecutor has to prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;So every crime, which is a creature of some statute, has different elements. One is a mental element and then there are the things that you have to do to commit the crime. So like with bank robbery you have to, you know, take money by force from a financial institution and do it intentionally. And those are the things the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. What this judge is telling this jury in this kind of make-it-up-as-you-go-along New York state prosecution of federal law is that when they get to the end of the rainbow and we get to the elements of the offense, the jury doesn’t have to be in agreement on what it is exactly that Trump did or what he was trying to commit or conceal when he allegedly falsified his business record.&#8221;
&#8220;So they’re going to give the jury a menu of choices and tell the jury that some of them may believe that this was a criminal objective, some of them may believe something else was, but that they don’t have to be unanimous on that,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I actually think that’s pretty outrageous. But in this case, I’m not sure it makes the top ten of outrageous.&#8221;
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor, said that the judge &#8220;delivered the coup de grace&#8221; with his instructions to the jury.
<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=1716990157394000&amp;usg=AOvVaw33qQydjIo8bet419amChif">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous.&#8221;
&#8220;After the federal election violation, Merchan says that the second crime is falsifying other documents,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This creates a redundancy with the NY election violation on the falsifying documents. It allows the government to allege the falsification of documents as a felony and then allows such falsification to be also the unlawful means for certain documents. The third is the violation of tax laws.&#8221;
&#8220;So a dead misdemeanor for falsifying business records was zapped back into life by alleging that under NY election law 17-152 it was done to influence the election by the unlawful means of falsification of business records,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;It is so circular as to produce vertigo. So the jury finds some documents were falsified to use the unlawful means of falsifying other documents. That is only one of three possible crimes and the jury does not have to agree on which was the basis for their conviction.&#8221;

Jury To Begin Deliberations In Trump Hush Money Trial

Legal Experts Slam Judge In Trump Hush Money Case Over ‘Outrageous’ Jury Instructions

Hush money

The presiding judge&#8217;s conduct on Tuesday during closing arguments at former President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a>&#8216;s hush-money trial in New York City made for an &#8220;otherworldly&#8221; experience, according to George Washington University law professor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-level-of-denial-jonathan-turley-rips-into-wapos-last-defense-of-russian-collusion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jonathan Turley</a>.
Turley <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/05/28/turley_trump_courtroom_was_otherworldly_judge_allowed_jurors_to_believe_trump_violated_federal_election_law.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Fox News host Sean Hannity that Judge Juan Merchan allowed prosecutors to discuss former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen&#8217;s <a href="https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-us-news-ap-top-news-michael-cohen-74aaf72511d64fceb1d64529207bde64" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plea deal</a> in a way that implicated his old boss—despite orders not to let that influence the jurors who begin deliberations on Wednesday.
&#8220;What I saw in that courtroom was really otherworldly,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;I really attempted to give the judge the benefit of doubt on many occasions, but what I saw today was, frankly, outrageous.&#8221;
&#8220;At one point, the prosecutor actually said that Michael Cohen committed federal election violations upon the orders of Donald Trump,&#8221; Turley added. &#8220;Now, Merchan has given an instruction that the jury is not to supposed to attribute Cohen&#8217;s plea deal as an issue of guilt towards Trump.&#8221;
&#8220;So the defense objected and Merchan just overruled it and allowed the prosecutor to repeatedly state that the federal election violations by Trump are a fact and there is not any dispute to that and Merchan just sat there,&#8221; Turley said.
Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to allegedly cover up payments in a bid to conceal a tryst with adult film star Stormy Daniels as part of a “catch-and-kill” scheme to influence the 2016 election. Trump denies the affair and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Continuing his critique of the judge, Turley quipped that Merchan was &#8220;as useful as a ficus plant in that courtroom&#8221; as he waited for a &#8220;sign&#8221; that the judge was listening to what prosecutors were saying during the closing arguments.
<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=1716990157394000&amp;usg=AOvVaw33qQydjIo8bet419amChif">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
At one point, Turley explained, prosecutors said former White House aide Hope Hicks &#8220;burst into tears&#8221; because she knew her testimony during the trial &#8220;destroyed&#8221; Trump&#8217;s defense. &#8220;Really? How do you know that?&#8221; Turley asked rhetorically.
Turley also noted a prosecutor &#8220;basically started to testify&#8221; when saying that &#8220;catch-and-kill techniques&#8221; like what Trump is accused of employing &#8220;are just not used in media or politics.&#8221; Turley added, &#8220;That&#8217;s not in the record. He was giving testimony. There&#8217;s no expert for that.&#8221;
&#8220;Hillary Clinton killed and planted cases in that very election,&#8221; Turley went on. &#8220;Some of the most outrageous hoaxes were perpetrated by the Hillary Clinton campaign with an enabling media. In fact, many of those reporters listening helped the Hillary campaign do that.&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s what was so otherworldly about today,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;And I can&#8217;t imagine a jury member going into deliberations and not assuming that it is an established fact that federal election law violations have occurred.&#8221;

Turley Recalls ‘Otherwordly’ Experience At Trump Hush-Money Trial

Turley Recalls 'Otherwordly' Experience At Trump Hush-Money Trial

Alvin Bragg

Judge

Michael Cohen

New York City

Stormy Daniels

Speaking on &#8220;Fox &amp; Friends&#8221; on Monday, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley implicitly criticized the choice of Judge Juan Manuel Merchan for the Donald Trump business records trial in New York, pointing out that the judge had made a political contribution to Joe Biden.
“A lot of people are confused by this because it’s very clear that they say you can’t make political contributions,” Turley <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2024/05/20/turley-trump-trial-merchan-judge/">commented</a>. “Well, he did. And the fact that it is ‘de minimis’ or small, really, I think, misses the point. You make donations like that to show your support, that’s what that $15 did. “
“What’s also concerning for many is that Merchan was not randomly selected; he was hand-picked as the judge for this case, and many of us don’t understand it,” he continued. “You’ve got a judge who is a donor to the president, whose daughter is a major Democratic operative, you would think this would be an easy call. There are plenty of other judges.”
Merchan’s daughter Loren serves as president of the political consulting firm Authentic Campaigns, which represents Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the lead prosecutor in the first impeachment trial of former President Trump.
“Schiff’s campaign for US Senate scored an eye-popping $20 million in aid since he began soliciting donations off the presumptive GOP presidential front-runner’s unprecedented 34-count indictment last April, according to Federal Election Commission records,” <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/03/30/us-news/dem-clients-of-daughter-of-judge-in-trump-trial-raised-90m-off-case/">The New York Post</a> noted.
<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=1716386093359000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1H2hddzGHMov4jKnDi2Pr4">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“So he’s not going to be held accountable to the bar association, but this is one of the many aspects of this trial that are troubling for those who view this as the weaponization of the system,” Turley opined of Merchan.
Turley also criticized Merchan for his handling of the case, saying, “He’s allowed this jury to hear over and over again about election violations. Donald Trump did not commit an election violation. There’s no such violation in this case connected to his payments to [Michael] Cohen. My assumption is that the jury thinks that there were and that you’re allowing Cohen and [former National Enquirer publisher David] Pecker effectively to inform the jury on federal election law until you issue an instruction.”

Biden Impeachment Hearing

Turley Slams Choice Of ‘Hand-Picked’ Trump Judge Who Donated To Biden

campaign donation

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley argued over the weekend that the Supreme Court needed to strike a balance when ruling over whether presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution.
Turley made the remarks during an interview with Shannon Bream on &#8220;Fox News Sunday&#8221;.
&#8220;There is a slippery slope on both sides, but I was surprised with the three justices on the left, is that they didn&#8217;t seem at all concerned about how extreme that argument would be — leaving a president with no protection,&#8221; he said. &#8220;So the question that most of the justices were struggling with, and I thought they were doing in good faith, is how do we find a more balanced, nuanced approach here?&#8221;
&#8220;The government made a major concession to Justice Gorsuch when he said there are things you can&#8217;t criminalize that a president does and the government said yes,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And he said doesn&#8217;t it sound a lot like immunity? Isn&#8217;t it our job to try to define where that is? It was a devastating moment.&#8221;
He added, &#8220;So there is a real chance that this could be sent back to the trial court, to say we need more information of which of these acts were part of an official function, and which were not. That will take time and likely derail any effort to try Trump before the election in Washington D.C.&#8221;

Jonathan Turley: Supreme Court Needs To Strike A Balance On Presidential Immunity

Immunity

Neil Gorsuch

Supreme Court

Menu