ReportWire

Tag: jonathan turley

  • Donald Trump may be stuck in a Manhattan courtroom, but he knows his fave legal analysts

    Donald Trump may be stuck in a Manhattan courtroom, but he knows his fave legal analysts

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – If there are bragging rights associated with Donald Trump praising your legal acumen when he speaks after a day’s testimony at his criminal trial, Fox News analyst Andy McCarthy has already been cited at least a dozen times.

    The former president and current presidential candidate has routinely stepped to a metal barricade outside the courtroom in lower Manhattan to face cameras and get the last word on the day’s proceedings. As the trial has wound down, his speeches — he rarely acknowledges shouted questions — more frequently consist of reading the words of friendly commentators from a sheaf of papers.

    Besides McCarthy, a former Manhattan prosecutor and writer for National Review, Fox commentators Jonathan Turley, Gregg Jarrett and Mark Levin get frequent shoutouts.

    “Every legal scholar says, `They don’t have a case,’” Trump has said more than once while reading back supportive quotes.

    McCarthy, quoted by the former president three separate times on May 13, is a “great analyst,” Trump said. Some favorites get personal praise: Byron York is “a great person, great reporter.” Alan Dershowitz is similarly “a great person,” Trump said. Occasionally, someone from CNN slips in. MSNBC gets the silent treatment.

    For television, New York’s ban on cameras in the courtroom means plenty of airtime for legal analysts. It evokes the high point of the form three decades ago, when the O.J. Simpson murder trial made household names of the likes of Jeffrey Toobin, Nancy Grace and Greta Van Susteren. Fox’s Jarrett, who worked at Court TV in the 1990s, straddles the eras.

    OPINIONS FROM EXPERTS RUN THE GAMUT

    Naturally, it’s not hard to find those who contradict Trump. On the television news networks covering the trial extensively, prevailing opinions tend to reflect the audiences they seek: little sympathy for the prosecution’s case on Fox, equally difficult to find praise for the defense on MSNBC. On CNN, it’s more mixed.

    The more experienced legal minds, like Chuck Rosenberg speaking on MSNBC on Wednesday, note that it would be foolish to predict an outcome. The only opinions that really matter are the jurors’.

    More nuanced coverage can usually be found offscreen. Sunday’s edition of The New York Times, for example, had a news story quoting experts that concluded: “Several experts say the case remains the prosecution’s to lose.” In the same day’s opinion section, columnist Ross Douthat concluded that the case has been a political winner for Trump so far.

    “Just as even paranoid people can have enemies, even sinful demagogues can face a politically motivated prosecution — and stand to gain from the appearance of legal persecution,” Douthat wrote. “And that appearance, so far, has been the trial’s political gift to Donald Trump.”

    MSNBC was devoting a large part of its day to Trump’s legal issues well before the current trial. Former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann is a huge presence there; he also contributes a podcast, “Prosecuting Donald Trump,” with fellow analyst Mary McCord.

    Even MSNBC’s biggest stars, including Rachel Maddow, have spent time in the courtroom. After listening to Trump’s defense earlier this week, she reported that it was “discursive, sprawling and uninteresting.”

    TRUMP CHOOSES HIS FOCUS

    Fox’s commentators on this case have drawn much of Trump’s attention. Turley made 47 appearances to talk about the trial on Fox’s weekday programs from the start of the trial through May 15, with McCarthy logging 35, according to the liberal watchdog Media Matters.

    McCarthy once prosecuted terrorism cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York’s Southern District and represented Rudolph Giuliani. Turley is a professor at George Washington University’s law school and founded the Project for Older Prisoners, which helps seek release of geriatric prison inmates.

    Writing about the trial in the National Review, McCarthy said that “Trump ought to be acquitted for the simplest of reasons: Prosecutors can’t prove their case.” He criticized prosecution witness and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen on the air, saying Cohen’s dishonesty and bias against Trump will be problems he has to overcome with the jury.

    Turley, speaking to Fox’s Jesse Watters last week, called Cohen “the most compromised, unbelievable witness in the history of the federal legal system.” On another Fox appearance, Turley said the judge, Juan Merchan, shouldn’t even give the case to the jury.

    “I think this case is gone,” Turley said. “They didn’t state the basis for a crime.”

    On Fox this week, anchor Martha MacCallum said that “if you watch the legal experts on the other channels, this case is airtight.”

    The network on Monday, as it usually does, ran Trump’s daily wrap in its 5 p.m. ET hour — the time slot of “The Five,” the most popular program on cable news. MSNBC didn’t carry Trump. CNN showed the former president and immediately followed him with a fact-check.

    As happened that day, and occasionally others, Trump singled out some CNN commentators for praise. He quoted CNN’s Laura Coates, Elie Honig and Tim Parlatore, the latter a former Trump lawyer hired as an analyst.

    CNN’s fact-checker, Tom Foreman, said that Trump was doing “a lot of cherry-picking” in his citations.

    “It is certainly true that we have some panelists who say this is not a good case,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said. “There are also people who feel the other way. And that’s what we try to do here — bring a diversity of viewpoints.”

    ___

    David Bauder writes about media for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    David Bauder, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Takeaways from President Biden’s first impeachment hearing by House Oversight panel | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from President Biden’s first impeachment hearing by House Oversight panel | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans kicked off their first impeachment inquiry hearing Thursday laying out the allegations they will pursue against President Joe Biden, though their expert witnesses acknowledged Republicans don’t yet have the evidence to prove the accusation they’re leveling.

    Thursday’s hearing in the House Oversight Committee didn’t include witnesses who could speak directly to Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealing at the center of the inquiry, but the hearing offered Republicans the chance to show some of the evidence they’ve uncovered to date.

    None of that evidence has shown Joe Biden received any financial benefit from his son’s business dealings, but Republicans said at Thursday’s hearing what they’ve found so far has given them the justification to launch their impeachment inquiry.

    Democrats responded by accusing Republicans of doing Donald Trump’s bidding and raising his and his family’s various foreign dealings themselves, as well as Trump’s attempts to get Ukraine to investigate in 2019 the same allegations now being raised in the impeachment inquiry.

    Here’s takeaways from Thursday’s first impeachment inquiry hearing:

    While Republicans leveled accusations of corruption against Joe Biden over his son’s business dealings, the GOP expert witnesses who testified Thursday were not ready to go that far.

    Forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky, one of the GOP witnesses, undercut Republicans’ main narrative by saying there wasn’t enough evidence yet for him to conclude that there was “corruption” by the Bidens.

    “I am not here today to even suggest that there was corruption, fraud or wrongdoing,” Dubinsky said. “More information needs to be gathered before I can make such an assessment.”

    He said there was a “smokescreen” surrounding Hunter Biden’s finances, including complex overseas shell companies, which he said raise questions for a fraud expert about possible “illicit” activities.

    Conservative law professor Jonathan Turley also said that the House does not yet have evidence to support articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, but argued that House Republicans were justified in opening an impeachment inquiry.

    “I want to emphasize what it is that we’re here today for. This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment,” Turley said. “In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is something that an inquiry has to establish. But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”

    Turley said that Biden’s false statements about his knowledge of Hunter Biden’s business endeavors, as well as the unproven allegations that Biden may have benefited from his son’s business deals, were reason for the House to move forward with the impeachment inquiry. (CNN has previously reported that Joe Biden’s unequivocal denials of any business-related contact with his son have been undercut over time, including by evidence uncovered by House Republicans.)

    Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor, has repeatedly backed up Republican arguments on key legal matters in recent years, including his opposition to Trump’s first and second impeachments.

    Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, pushed Turley further on his comments, asking whether he would vote “no” today on impeachment.

    “On this evidence, certainly,” Turley said. “At the moment, these are allegations. There is some credible evidence there that is the basis of the allegations.”

    Witnesses are sworn in before the House Oversight Committee on September 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

    House Republicans opened their first impeachment hearing Thursday with a series of lofty claims against the president, as they try to connect him to his son’s “corrupt” business dealings overseas.

    House Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer claimed the GOP probes have “uncovered a mountain of evidence revealing how Joe Biden abused his public office for his family’s financial gain,” even though he hasn’t put forward any concrete evidence backing up that massive allegation.

    Two other Republican committee chairs further pressed their case, including by citing some of the newly released Internal Revenue Service documents, which two IRS whistleblowers claim show how the Justice Department intervened in the Hunter Biden criminal probe to protect the Biden family. However, many of their examples of alleged wrongdoing occurred during the Trump administration before Joe Biden took office.

    Ahead of the hearing, the Republican chairs released a formal framework laying out the scope of their probe, saying it “will span the time of Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency to the present, including his time out of office.”

    The document outlines specific lines of inquiry, including whether Biden engaged in “corruption, bribery, and influence peddling” – none of which Republicans have proved yet.

    The memo included four questions the Republicans are seeking to answer related to whether Biden took any action related to payments his family received or if the president obstructed the investigations into Hunter Biden.

    House Oversight Committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2023.

    At the close of the hearing Thursday, Comer announced that he was issuing subpoenas for the bank records of the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and brother, James Biden.

    The subpoenas will be for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records, a source familiar with the subpoenas confirmed.

    The subpoenas are not a surprise, as Comer has been signaling his intention to issue the subpoenas for the personal bank records. They show where Republicans will head next in their investigation as they continue to seek evidence to substantiate their unproven allegations about the president.

    Some inside the GOP expressed frustration to CNN in real time with how the House GOP’s first impeachment inquiry hearing is playing out, as the Republican witnesses directly undercut the GOP’s own narrative and admit there is no evidence that Biden has committed impeachable offenses.

    “You want witnesses that make your case. Picking witnesses that refute House Republicans arguments for impeachment is mind blowing,” one senior GOP aide told CNN. “This is an unmitigated disaster.”

    One GOP lawmaker also expressed some disappointment with their performance thus far, telling CNN: “I wish we had more outbursts.”

    The bar for Thursday’s hearing was set low: Republicans admitted they would not reveal any new evidence, but were hoping to at least make the public case for why their impeachment inquiry is warranted, especially as some of their own members remain skeptical of the push.

    But some Republicans are not even paying attention, as Congress is on the brink of a shutdown – a point Democrats hammered during the hearing.

    “I haven’t watched or listened to a moment of it,” said another GOP lawmaker. There’s a shutdown looming.”

    Rep Jim Jordan delivers remarks during the House Oversight Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on September 28, 2023 in Washington, DC.

    Democrats repeatedly pointed out that the Republican allegations about foreign payments were tied to money that went mostly Hunter Biden – but not the to the president.

    “The majority sits completely empty handed with no evidence of any presidential wrongdoing, no smoking gun, no gun, no smoke,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee.

    Raskin’s staff brought in the 12,000 pages of bank records the committee has received so far, as Raskin said, “not a single page shows a dime going to President Joe Biden.”

    Raskin also had a laptop open displaying a countdown clock for when the government shuts down in a little more than two days – another point Democrats used to bash Republicans for focusing on impeachment and failing to pass bills to fund the government. The Democrats passed the laptop around to each lawmaker as they had their five minutes to question the witnesses.

    Their arguments also previewed how Democrats intend to play defense for the White House as Republicans move forward on their impeachment inquiry.

    The Democrats needled Republicans for not holding a vote on an impeachment inquiry – one Democrat asked Turley whether he would recommend a vote, which Turley said he would.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks on the Democratic side of the aisle, as the House Oversight Committee begins an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

    House Democrats’ 2019 impeachment of Trump was sparked by Trump’s attempts to push Ukraine to investigate allegations involving Biden and his son’s position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company – some of the same allegations now being probed by the House GOP.

    That led Democrats Thursday to push for testimony from Rudy Giuliani, who as Trump’s personal lawyer sought to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine in 2019.

    Twice, the Democrats forced the Oversight Committee to vote on Democratic motions to subpoena Giuliani, votes that served as stunts to try to hammer home their argument that Giuliani tried and failed to corroborate the same allegations at the heart of the Biden impeachment inquiry.

    “I ask the question: Where in the world is Rudy Giuliani?” said Rep. Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, one of the Democrats who forced the procedural vote. “That’s how we got here, ladies and gentlemen. And this committee is afraid to bring him before us and put him on the record. Shame! And the question was raised. What does this have to do with it? It has everything to do with it.”

    In addition to Giuliani, Raskin sought testimony from Lev Parnas, an associate of Giuliani’s who was indicted in 2019. Parnas subsequently cooperated with the Democratic impeachment inquiry, including providing a statement from a top official at Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company, stating, “No one from Burisma had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him.”

    Several Democrats also raised Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who worked in the White House, receiving $2 billion from Saudi Arabia through a company he formed after leaving the White House.

    The Democrats charged that Kushner’s actions were far worse than Hunter Biden’s, because Kushner worked in government, while Biden’s son did not.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link