Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley

Role at the time: Law professor writing in his own name

Statement summary

Turley criticizes canceling a press-freedom event after publication of contested opinions.

“Universities are supposed to be places where such questions can be discussed openly and freely.”

Jonathan Turley

Role at the time: Law professor at George Washington University Law School and Fox News contributor, on his personal X account

Statement summary

Fox News contributor and law professor Jonathan Turley wrote in an X thread, reacting to Trump's reaffirmation of his intention to exclude CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House, that he has often joined criticism of the outlets' bias but considers barring disfavored media a terrible precedent and practice. He said such a move would be an attack on long-standing free-press principles and, in a second post, that it would raise serious constitutional questions.

“barring disfavored media from the White House is a terrible precedent and practice”

Jonathan Turley

Role at the time: Law professor at George Washington University Law School and legal commentator, writing on his personal site

Statement summary

Law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that Judge Diamond had reluctantly concluded Krasner and his assistant may have violated the law, summarised the findings on a pressure campaign against staff who raised concerns and on potential perjury, obstruction, false statements and conspiracy, and argued that Krasner had exhausted the patience of courts and the loyalty of his own staff. He framed the referral as the consequence of Krasner using the office to advance ideology.

“For a man who ran on the slogan "F around and find out," Larry Krasner may soon find out.”

Jonathan Turley

Role at the time: Law professor at George Washington University and legal commentator, writing on X

Statement summary

In an X thread, law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that there was “a surprising development regarding long-standing but unproven allegations” against Rep. Ilhan Omar. He wrote that “it is unclear what evidence Mullen gathered to allegedly establish this fact” and that “there is still no indication of a referral to the Justice Department in the case,” while noting that “there would be more than the mere possibility of illegal activity if someone married her brother and falsely filled out marriage or immigration papers.” Turley spells the Secretary’s name “Mullen.”

“There would be more than the mere possibility of illegal activity if someone married her brother and falsely filled out marriage or immigration papers. It is unclear what evidence Mullen gathered to allegedly establish this fact.” … “Again, it is not clear what, if any, new evidence is being referenced by Mullen. However, we have not previously had an official, let alone a cabinet member, make this claim and refer to expected actions. There is still no indication of a referral to the Justice Department in the case so we have to wait to see if Mullen’s statement signals an actual major change in the investigation.”

Jonathan Turley

Role at the time: George Washington University law professor publishing his commentary on defamation law

Statement summary

Turley defends the democratic rationale for giving criticism of government officials breathing space. He questions applying the same actual-malice burden to other public figures and argues that the courts should reconsider that extension.

“What we really need is an airing out – not of the constitutional standard but of its application to non-public officials.”