Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, issued a dire warning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday: &#8220;Antifa is winning.&#8221;
&#8220;If you go through the antifa handbook and look at their literature, it&#8217;s quite express, as stated in the handbook, they reject the premise of what they call a classical liberal view of free speech,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;Specifically they object to statements like, &#8216;I may disagree with what you have to say, but I would give my life to defend it.&#8217; They reject that. They believe that free speech itself is a tool of oppression.&#8221;
&#8220;And that has been the message on campuses. What I thought was disturbing about these statements that antifa is a myth is that many of us on campus have been dealing with antifa for years. And antifa is winning,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;I’ve been teaching for 30 years. I have never seen the level of fear and intimidation on campuses that we see today. Faculty are afraid to speak out about issues. We can’t have a dialogue about the important issues occurring today because there’s a fear that you might be accused of being reactionary or racist.&#8221;
&#8220;We’ve had law professors who have been physically attacked, have required police protection. That’s the environment that we’re developing,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;And for people that think that antifa and groups like it can be allies, they don’t know antifa. Those of us who have been teaching on campuses can tell you about these groups. And the alarm that I have is because I’m watching my profession, the teaching profession, die, with free speech. &#8230; We’re seeing, many of these speakers are being prevented from speaking on campus under various theories. And the message is clear to faculty; it’s clear to students – there’s a new orthodoxy that you should not confront and you certainly shouldn’t disagree with.&#8221;
&#8220;There are some Democratic politicians that have not only failed to denounce antifa, but have actually, in that case, seemed to give it a shout out,&#8221; Turley concluded. &#8220;If you go to campuses today, you will find more advocates for limiting speech than protecting it. They’re winning &#8230; it’s very disturbing because antifa’s not coming after &#8230; Democrats, they’re coming after Republicans, conservatives, and those of us in the free speech community. They’re coming after us. But don’t think we’ll be the last ones. That’s not how this works.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Andy Ngo Speaks at Congress About Antifa" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0tNXomjObIA?start=1126&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Professor Turley, you testified that antifa is profoundly anti-speech and violent. Can you elaborate on that, please?
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY: Yes. If you go through the antifa handbook and look at their literature, it&#8217;s quite express, as stated in the handbook, they reject the premise of what they call a classical liberal view of free speech. Specifically they object to statements like, &#8216;I may disagree with what you have to say, but I would give my life to defend it.&#8217; They reject that. They believe that free speech itself is a tool of oppression.
And that has been the message on campuses. What I thought was disturbing about these statements that antifa is a myth is that many of us on campus have been dealing with antifa for years. And antifa is winning. There is a tremendous movement, an anti-free speech movement in the United States. My testimony doesn’t really go to these protests. I think that both the far-right and far-left are doing bad things in these protests. Antifa members have been arrested in these protests. Antifa groups like Rose City Antifa have been leading some of these efforts.
But my greater concern, and the one that I would hope that members would look at, is this anti-free speech movement that antifa is part of. I’ve been teaching for 30 years. I have never seen the level of fear and intimidation on campuses that we see today. Faculty are afraid to speak out about issues. We can’t have a dialogue about the important issues occurring today because there’s a fear that you might be accused of being reactionary or racist.
We’ve had law professors who have been physically attacked, have required police protection. That’s the environment that we’re developing. And for people that think that antifa and groups like it can be allies, they don’t know antifa. Those of us who have been teaching on campuses can tell you about these groups. And the alarm that I have is because I’m watching my profession, the teaching profession, die, with free speech. Administrators are not protecting academic freedom; why should they protect free speech?
We’re seeing, many of these speakers are being prevented from speaking on campus under various theories. And the message is clear to faculty; it’s clear to students – there’s a new orthodoxy that you should not confront and you certainly shouldn’t disagree with. And I go through those details in my testimony.
CRUZ: So professor Turley, I very much agree with you that we ought to be united in condemning violence from whatever ideological origin it comes from – whether right-wing, left-wing, or no wing at all. If you’re committing violence against fellow Americans, that ought to be condemned, you ought to be arrested, you ought to be prosecuted; you ought to go to jail. I do think it is striking that in the entire course of this hearing, seven Democratic senators spoke in this hearing. Not a single Democratic senator condemned antifa. Not a one of them condemned antifa’s violence and terrorism. Do you think it is harmful that — the sitting attorney general of Minnesota, a Democrat, posed with the book you just held up in your testimony, the antifa handbook, gleefully modeling it? Do you think it is helpful for elected Democrats to be holding out a violent, anti-speech organization like antifa, and acting essentially as apologists for it? Is that good for our democracy?
TURLEY: I criticized Mr. Ellison for that tweet. There are some Democratic politicians that have not only failed to denounce antifa, but have actually, in that case, seemed to give it a shout out. In that case, Mr. Ellison said that they would put the fear in the heart of Donald Trump. But what he doesn’t see is that antifa is putting fear in the hearts of many people other than Donald Trump. If you go to campuses today, you will find more advocates for limiting speech than protecting it. They’re winning. When you see pictures like Mr. Ellison’s picture with antifa, it’s very disturbing because antifa’s not coming after him, they’re not even coming after Democrats, they’re coming after Republicans, conservatives, and those of us in the free speech community. They’re coming after us. But don’t think we’ll be the last ones. That’s not how this works.</blockquote>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing On Protecting Speech By Stopping Anarchist Violence

Law Professor Testifies: Antifa Targets ‘Republicans,’ ‘Fear And Intimidation’ Worst Ever On Campuses

Antifa

Free Speech

Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, issued a dire warning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday:

description

noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1

robots

Law Professor Testifies: Antifa Targets ‘Republicans,’ ‘Fear And Intimidation’ Worst Ever On Campuses | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/law-professor-testifies-antifa-targets-republicans-fear-and-intimidation-worst-ever-on-campuses/

twitter:card

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/08/Turley-scaled.jpg

twitter:image

Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, slammed former President Barack Obama on Saturday after Obama made false statements about the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissing the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-worried-that-flynn-cleared-by-doj-over-illegitimate-investigation-rule-of-law-is-at-risk">said</a> in a leaked phone call late this week. “And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”
Turley, who is a Democrat, noted that Flynn was never charged with perjury and that his claim that there was &#8220;no precedent&#8221; for what the DOJ did with Flynn is false, as the Obama administration did the same thing with former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Turley <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/09/president-obama-declares-there-is-no-precedent-that-anybody-can-find-for-the-flynn-motion-he-may-want-to-call-eric-holder/">wrote</a> on his website:
<blockquote>While people of good faith can certainly disagree on the wisdom or basis for the Flynn motion, it is simply untrue if President Obama is claiming that there is no precedent or legal authority for the motion.
The rare statement by President Obama is also interesting in light of the new evidence. As I discussed in a column this morning in the Hill newspaper, the new material shows that Obama was following the investigation of Flynn who he previously dismissed from a high-level position and personally intervened with President Donald Trump to seek to block his appointment as National Security Adviser. Obama reportedly discussed the use of the Logan Act against Flynn. For a person concerned with precedent, that was also a curious focus. The Logan Act is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used to successfully convicted a single person since the early days of the Republic. Now that is dubious precedent.</blockquote>
Turley later hit CNN for their reporting on Obama&#8217;s false claim, tweeting, &#8220;CNN continues to report on Obama&#8217;s statement without noting that he was wrong on Flynn&#8217;s criminal charge and wrong on the lack of precedent. Given its slogan ‘Facts First,’ it appears the facts are not even coming last. They are not coming at all.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
(resent) CNN continues to report on Obama&#39;s statement without noting that he was wrong on Flynn&#39;s criminal charge and wrong on the lack of precedent. Given its slogan &quot;Facts First,&quot; it appears the facts are not even coming last. They are not coming at all. <a href="https://t.co/UQ58aLDB6T">https://t.co/UQ58aLDB6T</a>
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1259219916760244226?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Fox News reported this week that newly unsealed documents showed that Obama was aware of the FBI’s wiretapping of Flynn’s phone calls.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-knew-details-of-wiretapped-flynn-phone-calls-surprising-top-doj-official-new-docs-show">reported</a>:
<blockquote>President Obama was aware of the details of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to documents released Thursday as exhibits to the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case.
Obama’s unexpectedly intimate knowledge of the details of Flynn’s calls, which the FBI acknowledged at the time were not criminal or even improper, raised eyebrows because of his own history with Flynn — and because top FBI officials secretly discussed whether their goal was to “get [Flynn] fired” when they interviewed him in the White House on January 24, 2017.
Obama personally had warned the Trump administration against hiring Flynn, and made clear he was “not a fan,” according to multiple officials. Obama had fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014; Obama cited insubordination, while Flynn asserted he was pushed out for his aggressive stance on combating lslamic extremism.</blockquote>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Democrat Law Professor Blasts Obama For False Statements About DOJ Dismissing Flynn Case

Barack Obama

Michael Flynn

Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, slammed former President Barack Obama on Saturday after Obama made false

Democrat Law Professor Blasts Obama For False Statements About DOJ Dismissing Flynn Case | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-law-professor-blasts-obama-for-false-statements-about-doj-dismissing-flynn-case/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/01/Jonathan-Turley-scaled.jpg

Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University Jonathan Turley, a Trump critic who was widely praised for his non-partisan testimony during House Democrats&#8217; impeachment hearings, praised Trump&#8217;s legal team on Saturday over their performance in defending the president.
&#8220;The House took a lot of hits below the waterline today,&#8221; Turley wrote on Twitter. &#8220;These were powerful points that gave ample foundation for senators to support acquittal without agreeing with the Dershowitz theory or the suggestion that everything was &#8216;perfect.&#8217; I liked the low key, fact-based argument.&#8221;
&#8220;The White House did a particularly good job explaining its position on refusing discovery and also the unfair process,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;Moreover, it was a brilliant decision to limit the opening to a few hours. The House subjected the Senate to mind-numbing repetition for 22 hours.&#8221;
&#8220;By giving up much of the first day, the White House gave a concise opening, relieved the jury, and pushed the main argument to Monday with a larger television audience,&#8221; Turley concluded. &#8220;It was a sophisticated and effective strategy that paid off. A very strong start to their case.&#8221;
Earlier this week, Turley said that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), one of the Democrats&#8217; impeachment managers, made a &#8220;huge blunder&#8221; in delivering Democrats&#8217; case.
&#8220;One of the things you teach law students is that when you make arguments to juries, make sure you don’t insult the jury,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;That is, you don’t want to make statements that make them feel stupid or ascribe any bad motivations to them, and if there was one major blunder during the argument it was Jerry Nadler, who got ahead of the skis a bit and said that the Senate could be engaged in a cover up, and when he said that, people on the floor recounted later that there was sort of a hush, a reaction from the Senators.&#8221;
&#8220;This is not the place for that,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;And what was notable was that it was Lisa Murkowski, one of the Senators they are trying to get, who was the first to object outside the chambers and said that she was deeply insulted. You know, this is not just the most deliberative body, it&#8217;s the most defensive body, and if you actually call them traitors or conspirators in a cover up, it&#8217;s more likely that they&#8217;re going to join together than break apart.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Prof. Turley: Jerry Nadler made a “major blunder” by insulting senators. 
 <a href="https://t.co/utjmSabp3W">pic.twitter.com/utjmSabp3W</a>
&mdash; Kambree Kawahine Koa &#8211; Text EMPOWER to 88022 (@KamVTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/KamVTV/status/1220461301367037952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Turley was referring to Nadler <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/22/nadler_any_senator_who_wont_vote_to_subpoena_john_bolton_is_complicit_in_trumps_cover-up.html">saying</a>, &#8220;If you vote to block this witness or any evidence, it can only be because you do not want the American people to hear the evidence, that you do not want a fair trial, and that you are complicit in President Trump&#8217;s efforts to hide misconduct and the truth from the American people.&#8221;
&#8220;The question is if the Senate will be complicit in the president&#8217;s crimes by covering them up,&#8221; Nadler added. &#8220;Any senator who votes against any relevant testimony shows that he and she are part of the cover up. What other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness to testify here?&#8221;

Impeachment Witness, Trump Critic: Trump Trial Defense ‘Brilliant,’ ‘Sophisticated,’ ‘Effective’

Donald Trump

Impeachment

Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University Jonathan Turley, a Trump critic who was widely praised for his non-partisan testimony during

Impeachment Witness, Trump Critic: Trump Trial Defense ‘Brilliant,’ ‘Sophisticated,’ ‘Effective’ | The Daily Wire

https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachment-witness-trump-critic-trump-trial-defense-brilliant-sophisticated-effective/

Menu

Jonathan Turley

Law Professor Testifies: Antifa Targets ‘Republicans,’ ‘Fear And Intimidation’ Worst Ever On Campuses

Democrat Law Professor Blasts Obama For False Statements About DOJ Dismissing Flynn Case

Impeachment Witness, Trump Critic: Trump Trial Defense ‘Brilliant,’ ‘Sophisticated,’ ‘Effective’

10 days until election

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.