professor jonathan turley is correct when he called this a quote dangerous snap impeachment. mpeachment that effectively would go to a vote without the deliberation or inquiries of the traditional hearing. professor turley also noted that quote, the damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous. however, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment. unquote. if the majority seeking consensus this is hardly the way to create it. the majority is failing to provide the house with an opportunity to review all the facts, which are still coming to light. to discuss all the evidence, to listen to scholars, to examine the witnesses, and to consider precedents. this is not the type of robust process we have followed for every modern impeachment and the failure to do so does a great disservice to this institution and to this country. mr. speaker, i can think of nothing that will cause further division more than the path the majority is now taking. rather than looking ahead to a new administration, the majority is again seeking to settle score

again, this is from jonathan turley. but his address doesn't meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. it would be viewed as protected speech by the supreme court. when i testified in the hearings i noted that the article doesn't have to be based on any clear crime but congress looked to the criminal code to weigh out the impeachment of fences. for this controversy now any such comparison that claims criminal incitement despite broad condemnation of his words, trump never actually called for violence or riots but urged supporters to march on the capital to raise opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of congress. trump told the crowd to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard. these kind of legal challenges have been made by democrats in the past under the electoral vote so he was pressing republicans in congress to join the efforts of his behalf. he ended his remarks with the kind of pride and boldness that they need to

again, this is from jonathan turley. but his address doesn't meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. it would be viewed as protected speech by the supreme court. when i testified in the hearings i noted that the article doesn't have to be based on any clear crime but congress looked to the criminal code to weigh out the impeachment of fences. for this controversy now any such comparison that claims criminal incitement despite broad condemnation of his words, trump never actually called for violence or riots but urged supporters to march on the capital to raise opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of congress. trump told the crowd to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard. these kind of legal challenges have been made by democrats in the past under the electoral vote so he was pressing republicans in congress to join the efforts of his behalf. he ended his remarks with the kind of pride and boldness that they need to

again, this is from jonathan turley. it does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. it would be viewed as protected speech by the supreme court. when i testified in the impeachment hearings of trump and bill clinton, i noted an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that is congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment defenses. for this controversy now, any such comparison would to sell claims of criminal incitement despite broad and justified condemnation of his word, trump and actually called for violence riots. he urged his supporters to march on the capital to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of congress. trump told the crowd to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard. these crimes of legal challenges have -- kinds of legal challenges have been made by democrats in the past. trump was pressing republicans in congress to join the effort on his b

do you agree with republican senator ron johnson and jonathan turley we need to look into what happenedaven't seen senator johnson's proposal but i've read professor turley's piece and i absolutely believe there should truly be a bipartisan commission, not made up much senators and relationships but but -- representatives and citizens looking into this, with subpoena power, looking into the election so all of the various rumors can either be dispelled or proven. i think there needs to be a comprehensive look at both the election in 2020 and at what the problems are and what the problems may be going forward. now certainly we had a very initial year with the pandemic but it is very important and people have very legitimate questions about what happened. for example, lower level officials or judges basically abrogating state statutory law. all of that is a legitimate issue. it doesn't mean by looking into that that you are, you are denigrating the win of biden. i think that vice president, former vice president biden legitimately won the election and i believed that from day one but quest

senate cannot validate this insane, as jonathan turley has been telling us, snap impeachment. the one with a zero evidence, zero investigation, and zero defense, no deliberation. keep in mind, we now have reports all over the place of even "the washington post" and fake news cnn, court documents, real court documents showing that investigators believe a lot of planning was made in advance of what happened at the capital on january the 6th, in other words, well, the president didn't incite an insurrection. in fact we are learning that many of those that breached the capital ignored the president's own words, some of you will peacefully and patriotically be marching towards the capital so your voices will be heard. make no mistake, this trial will now accomplish nothing. it is political theater, frankly worse it's washington that is worst, it's a massive government waste of time and resources. by the way, money in the middle of a pandemic, needed monies. it's a divisive, self-serving political charade, one last smear, one for the gipper, former president trump, and the 75 millio

thanks, jonathan turley.to see you. >> thank you. >> bill: kim jong-un is back at it calling to increase his nuclear program. what his message could be for the incoming biden administration. recall what he did four years ago this month. also, why some parents are accusing an elementary school of teaching their kids racism. what is that about? do we really need a sign to live, laugh, and love? -yes. -the answer is no. i can help new homeowners not become their parents. -kee-on-oh... -nope. -co-ee-noah. -no. -joaquin. -no. it just takes practice. give it a shot. [ grunts, exhales deeply ] -did you hear that? -yeah. it's a constant battle. we're gonna open a pdf. who's next? progressive can't save you from becoming your parents, but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto with us. no fussin', no cussin', and no -- ♪ ♪ learning is hard work. hard work requires character. learning begins in faith. it must move upwards toward the highest thing, unseen at the beginning - god. and freedom is essential to

constitutional law professor jonathan turley warned democrats would not be impeaching the president but free speech in a mad rush to impeach trump. a constitutional scholar professor have argued that if trump's speech is protected by the first amendment, congress cannot impeach him. the house should not ignore its precedent, historical process and setting a new standard today. the people who filed the articles want americans to believe trump and is in intimate trend -- imminent threat to the country but a few days ago democrat in leadership said of the house impeach is the president today, they may hold the articles to prevent the senate from convening a trial until after president-elect biden's first 100 days in office. if they truly believe that president trump is such an imminent threat to the country, why would they even consider waiting more than three months until he is no longer in office to send the articles to the senate? and why is the incoming president biden, president-elect biden advocating for half-day trials in the senate so that commit members can still be? i have said t

thank you very much to jonathan turley, karl rove, great to see you tonight, thanks, gentlemen. so along with the rioters, thousands of americans showed up at the capitol hill event and they expected a peaceful gathering and impeachment of the president he would some fear that the president could make them targets. and they could be canceled for their politics. bill lavergne wrote about them today and so many others in "the wall street journal." he can ari fleischer join us after this. only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. did you know that every single flush flings odors onto your soft surfaces? then they get release back into the air, so you smell them later. ew right? that's why febreze created small spaces. press firmly and watch it get to work. unlike the leading cone, small spaces continuously eliminates odors in the air and on surfaces. so they don't come back for 45 days. just imagine what it can do with other odors. i have an idea for a trade. why don't you call td ameritrade for a strategy gut check? what's that? you run it by an expert, you t

so, help answer that question, many more, bring in jonathan turley, a fox news contributor. resident trump and bill clinton. good morning to you, professor turley. >> thank you very much. will: so we should talk about it at some point here the process how this whole thing could unfold but i do want to get i think directly to an op-ed you have where you say a swift new impeachment would in fact damage the constitution. so tell us about that. that is a very pretty high price to pay if we pursue impeachment, damaging the constitution. tell us why. >> it's a high price to pay. the very concept of what is called a snap impeachment is a contradiction in constitutional terms. this is designed to be a deliberative, not an impulsive act of congress. the framers made it very difficult and what is being suggested now is virtual snap vote on the floor of the house of representatives, on an issue does really need to be deliberated. if they're going to accuse the president of the united states of insurrection or a conspiracy for insurrection, then they need to look very closely at the evid

jonathan turley who was a witness for president trump when he was still president trump in the first impeachment trial on the legal elements of this will speak to republican senators behind closed doors today essentially arming them in a way with more process arguments about why as he believes this trial should not go forward in the first place. i expect we're going to hear a lot more of those arguments coming out of the mouths of republican senators after they have this briefing from professor turley today. >> you got to imagine that's going to be the case. carol, over on the other end of pennsylvania avenue you have finally now president biden making frankly his most extensive remarks yet about impeachment, including on whether he thinks the gop votes are actually there or not, right? fill us in. >> reporter: so he basically -- what he said was after days, hallie, where we had asked this question to the white house, what is the president's position on impeachment and they've really deflect and wouldn't the answer the question. just before the president weighed in on this running in

joining me now as jonathan turley, george washington university law professor. titutional law expert in fox news contributor. jonathan, is there anyway that john roberts could decide that he will not preside over this impeachment? can he just refuse? >> he can. he's not a bus. he doesn't pick up everyone he stops next to. he has to determine whether this is a function given to him by the constitution. the problem is that the constitution states that the chief justice should preside over a trial of the president. i doubt the democrats want to remove joe biden. there is the threshold issue for roberts. he may not be asked but it will beg the question of who is being tried? it is clearly not "the president" and it's clearly not to remove him from office. it's a private citizen who the senate will vote on removing from an office that he's already left. that creates a serious threshold issue for the senate. they may have the most consequential vote in their entire tenure as senators. that is whether to go forward with this trial. the constitution states that the princ

jonathan turley why he thinks this would permanently damage the constitution.ized for a slow covid vaccine rollout. now loosening restrictions in hopes of giving doses to millions. we are live at one of the cities first max vaccination sites nex. >> we know that there's going to be a lot of feeling here. people want this vaccine and we want to make sure they get it. we have to prioritize our seniors. we have got to prioritize all of our people first. so we will fix those priorities. $50,000 cash. f that's money for security today and money for retirement tomorrow. refiplus, it's only for veterans and it's only from newday usa. eh, not enough fiber... chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. with nutrients to help support immune health. ...little things... ...can become your big moment. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable.

jonathan turley, a constitutional law expert, a law professor and fox news contributor, great to haveon the program. what caught me at first was you've actually compare with about to happen potentially with a second impeachment trial in the senate and president trump to what happened in 1897 when the pope was put on trial and he was dead already. that is harsh. why do you put it that way? >> i think it might've been earlier than that, but taking a predecessor out of his tomb to set him up for trial, they convicted him, actually cut off some of his fingers and threw them into the river. and that's a rather extreme example of a retroactive judgment. with fairness to critics of president trump and some people of the senate, there are good faith arguments to be made for the retroactive impeachment for post service impeachment. 30 years ago, i wrote about this in a law journal piece, this was where he was tried retroactively in great britain. however, it's widely viewed and dealt with this in a couple of times were on both occasions, this issue has been raised in the first one, the case in

jonathan turley, thanks so much. >> thank you. brian: all right. still ahead.ia touting big tech's blackout of president trump. >> that's right, normally we would run a soundbite. >> historic moment. >> he has been knee capped by twitter. brian: our next guest says the media would be outraged if this happened to democrats. she is calling out the hypocrisy next. serena: it's my 9:12, no-days-off migraine medicine. it's ubrelvy. for anytime, anywhere migraine strikes without worrying if it's too late, or where i am. one dose can quickly stop migraine in its tracks within two hours. unlike older medicines, ubrelvy is a pill that directly blocks cgrp protein, believed to be a cause of migraine. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. most common side effects were nausea and tiredness. serena: ask about ubrelvy. the anytime, anywhere migraine medicine. serena: ask about ubrelvy. keeping your oysters busihas you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume dat

jonathan turley was invited to a lunch today. they wanted to hear what he said. thinks it's unconstitutional. any president could be barred from running again. impeachment will be used to curry favor with some voters. in essence, he's saying this is not constitutional. clearly republicans want to hear what he has to say. is it because they are really still on the fence or are they looking for reasons to say we're not going to vote to convict in the senate. >> i can't speak for all republicans. i'll speak for this republican. i want to know the facts. i'm not an attorney. i'm a senator. i need to understand the facts not just as an attorney would but as a senator would. what if we lower the threshold of impeachment so that no trial whatsoever is required, no evidence and no ability for the accused to defend himself or herself and then you rush it over? would that be something worthy of impeachment? frankly that's just what happened. they would argue the circumstances dictate it. it might be true. it's important for us to consider it and think about the precedence

joining me now, jonathan turley. i'm eager to get your opinion on this.t as far as to invoke the son of samla equating trump officials with convicted felons that shouldn't profit off of book deals. your thoughts. >> it's chilling. it's another demonstration that we're living through the most anti-free speech period since the red scare. the difference is that period was brought on from the right. universities and the media helped resist this effort. this is coming from the left and they're better at this. this is focusing on private companies and creating a digitized mob that sets upon anyone that set anything off the narrative. you can't say free speech. it's disinformation. you can't say riot. it's an insurrection. what we're seeing is something so dangerous -- there was a time when this type of letter would have had a hue and cry from the free speech community. but the silence is perfectly deafening. >> trace: you know what? i thought the same when you said this is from the left. i thought the said thing reading the letter. what struck me is when i read

let's bring in jonathan turley. he testified in the impeachment hearings for president trump and bill clinton who did not call on him because they didn't like what he had to say. house is going to have no debate. a simple vote on weapons. how does this play out? >> well, it's going to come down to a muscle vote. they will see how many if they get over the line in terms of majority for impeachment, what is a real shame is we're not going to have a very deliberative process. there are some very serious issues here. questions about not just the basis of the impeachment but also this idea of a snap impeachment. creating a pathway an easy quick way to impeach. it's ironic that in the last impeachment i chastised the democrats for impeaching on the thinnest record in the shortest period of time of any in presidential impeachment. they have now outdone themselves. they are going to go straight to the floor essentially and just do an up or down vote. that's the type of impulse by impeachment that we thought the constitution

i really paid very close attention, by the way to what jonathan turley also said.lled it a snap impeachment, a total contradiction to constitutional terms because our framers meant to this to be deliberative, not an impulsive act. the framers made it very difficult and had comments on the 25th amendment but just to get you to respond in your thoughts on it all. >> professor turley is absolutely right. democrats are treating impeachment like it's instant coffee or instant rice. it supposed to be careful and determined and deliberative, but they've abandoned their own rules which require fundamental rights of due process. there must be a hearing, presentation of evidence, the right to counsel, the right to a defense. they don't care about any of that nor do they care about the facts. the president did not com commin impeachable offense, nor does his conduct or words to meet the legal definition of inciting violence. look at what the president actually said, watch it on youtube, read a transcript "i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol bui

>> well, jonathan turley, i have to say, is something of a hack.elf wrote the very opposite not that long ago. he will say what he needs to say. but the overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the constitution does not contain a two-week loophole during which anyone who tries to steal an election can then have kind of open season, because you can't complete a senate trial before the inauguration of the next president. that would be an astonishing loophole in the constitution. whatever turley may think, it's not there. the framers were not that stupid. >> i'll read something else that you wrote today on twitter. you said, "nearly as vital as convicting and disqualifying trump is rejecting the proposed transition loophole that would give any defeated tyrant a two-week open hunting season between january 6th and 20th to commit whatever high crimes he chooses without ever facing a senate impeachment trial." do you think republicans actually understand they could be creating a new precedent as a result of their actions, this transition loophole a

let's bring in jonathan turley, constitutional professor of law.ardons, more commutations. i remember in 2001, i was at the white house when president clinton issued 140 pardons and even more commutations. >> first of all, congratulations on your show. many people thought you were too young and green for this but i said i worked with you at that other network and you're ready for this. the kid is ready. >> john: i'll try. >> that history is of course very telling. bill clinton really had demeaned this authority by giving a pardon to his half-brother and to a democratic donor as well as someone accused in the whitewater scandal so he was not alone in that. presidents have had many of the pardon controversies. i've been very critical of president trump's pardons for the same reason. what everyone is going to be looking for is is there going to be his name on one of these pardons. is he going to give a self pardon. and that creates a really interesting dimension for him than many of us obviously would say that is an abuse of power even though i think

constitutional scholars like jonathan turley, alan dershowitz and others have said there was not an incitementriot. and you've got to have an impeachable offense and, cleary, there was not one -- clearly, there was not one. even if there was, to impeach a president who's going to be out of office at noon next week on wednesday makes no sense. you cannot impeach a private citizen. the moment donald trump ends his tenure is the moment he's no longer subject to a senate trial. and so any attempt to do it forces this to go to the court, the court will dismiss it, and it's all a waste of taxpayers' time and money. gerry: so what do you think should happen in i mean, again, as you said, there are those who say the president didn't directly incite violence, but he was challenging the results of the election, he was asking his supporters to go to capitol hill and pressure mike pence, the vice president, to do something he couldn't do. clearly, the whole thing ended as it did. should the president face any kind of censure at all, or do you think everything he did was absolutely fine? >> well, i don't t

here to react fox news contributor george washington law professor jonathan turley. said this should georges-hunt forward for various reasons. you have been on every day every channel saying this is a problem. now that it's done what do you think? >> well, it has created a pathway for what i call the snap impeachment. they basically circumvented the usual process of impeachment. they did not hold a hearing where the implications of the articles of impeachment could be considered. they did not give a formal opportunity for the president to respond in a hearing. and they didn't give any real opportunity to amend the language. they went straight to the floor and demanded a vote. and they did get 10 republicans to vote with them but it was largely a partisan vote. this can be used again in the future. i think that's very unfortunate. i have always said i don't hold people for viewing the president's conduct impeachable. i don't like the language of this article of impeachment. i think that it is sweeping and it could have serious repercussions in the future as people wea

jonathan turley, who's advancing this argument, wrote in a law review article it was proper. it's just specious and cowardly, jake. >> in fact, several years ago a lot of trump's minions, house republicans, were talking about how you can impeach a former president, referring to president obama with the nonsensical obamagate, nonexistent crime. they were saying then you could do it to a former president. now they're singing a different tune. norm, many senators cited chief justice john roberts not presiding over this trial is a sign it's not constitutional. is that any argument? and why isn't he presiding? >> the constitution provides the chief juice presides over the trial of a current president. so there's a distinction that is rooted in the constitutional language. typically for all other trials, including ex-officials, you have the president pro tem of the senate, and that's going to be senator leahy, the most senior ranking member of the majority party who will preside. that's been done many, many times. but to jump from that constitutional distinction to the completely c

constitutional process they have used in the past and rushing to the floor makes what professor jonathan turley calls a dangerous nap impeachment. a snap impeachment without due process and without due consideration will not help bring the american people together as our focus should be and it's a great disservice to the institution of the country. but to make matters worse, and impeachment like this does not give members the opportunity to openly consider this course of action and put it into context. i know the majority believes the case for the impeachment is obvious i am not convinced that is true in annoyed large member of numbers who feel as i do, range of opinions about the president's conduct last week and given those differences i believe the appropriate course of action to take is to actually have a process. we should be considering these obligations, discussing them, working them through with experts in coming to a decision. without taking that course, there will be no consensus on this matter. in the consequences of that may be dire. moreover, some believe this process is so rushed

constitutional process they have used in the past and rushing to the floor makes what professor jonathan turley calls a dangerous nap impeachment. a snap impeachment without due process and without due consideration will not help bring the american people together as our focus should be and it's a great disservice to the institution of the country. but to make matters worse, and impeachment like this does not give members the opportunity to openly consider this course of action and put it into context. i know the majority believes the case for the impeachment is obvious i am not convinced that is true in annoyed large member of numbers who feel as i do, range of opinions about the president's conduct last week and given those differences i believe the appropriate course of action to take is to actually have a process. we should be considering these obligations, discussing them, working them through with experts in coming to a decision. without taking that course, there will be no consensus on this matter. in the consequences of that may be dire. moreover, some believe this process is so rushed

trey gowdy, thank you, jonathan turley, thank you. it is dark, but you can see a little bit of what is happening. everybody at home, they are pushing people back away from the capital to secure it. the re-entrance for mike pence to use preside over the certification of the electoral college for the state and the country of the presidential election of 2020. so if you are just joining us, and if you perhaps missed what happened today, here are just some of the shocking scenes where people broke into the windows and pushed back the capitol police up the staircases and plowed their way into protest and riot inside the united states capitol building. it was just an absolutely astonishing site that we saw today. and you know, we talked to kylie kremer before, she was at the early rally this morning and had her own reasons for being there and wanting to protest the election. but what we saw was something wholly different from any of those motivations. so moments ago, those are the mahogany boxes that contained sealed certificates of the ele

any chance for members to fully contemplate this course of action before proceeding professor jonathan turley is correct when he called this. a quote dangerous snap impeachment and impeachment that effectively would go to a vote without the deliberation or inquiries of the traditional hearing professor turley also noted that quote the damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous however it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap and pietschmann unquote if the majority seeking consensus this is hardly the way to create a majority failing to provide the house with an opportunity to review all the facts which are still coming to light to discuss all the evidence to listen to scholars to examine the witnesses and to consider precedents this is not the type of robust process we have followed for every modern impeachment and the failure to do so does a great disservice to this institution and to this country mr speaker i can think of nothing that will cause further division more than the path the majority is now taking rather than looking ahead to a new administr

jonathan thursdayly joins me now. he's -- turley joins me now.utor. thanks very much for joining us. it's georgetown university, do i have that right? >> george washington. jon: forgive me, all right. so let's talk about the prospects of more surveillance laws directed at americans. give us your take off the top of your head. >> well, like many in the civil liberties community, i'm very concerned about these proposals. this is a pattern we've seen before. after 9/11 it was determined that that attack the or those attacks could have been avoided with existing laws and resources. a series of acts of negligence on the part of the government allowed those attacks. but the result was that the very same agencies had massively expanded budgets and power. so here again we have what was clear negligence in allowing these rioters to gain access to the capitol, but the response of congress again is to radically expand the powers of the government. and the cost is almost always paid in civil liberties. we haven't even had a full investigation of how these ri

jonathan turley had this to say this morning about whether biden can call me storm. >> the speaker hasr arguedr impeachment, i think that's a really bad message to send to an already divided country, that the president would be potentially canceled by a congressional fiat. i think history can take care of that. >> dana: i thought that was an interesting point of view. what do you think? >> i totally agree with him and i agree with you, i want every single one of these thugs to be tracked down, identified, charged and if they committed felonies, have them go to jail. that said, i think it's interesting that one of the things you hear, they claim that their fellow republicans or the republicans in the chamber committed treason and because of their pursuits come up because of their questioning of the election results, completely within the confines of the constitution, how congress is to treat an election. if they committed treason and sedition by pursuing something that was not going to succeed the way they were sort of laying it out, my goodness, what was impeachment all about at the be

jonathan turley is a constitutional law professor and fox news contributor.or being here. start off with what is within their constitutional rights to challenge the results of this election and move forward with this process? >> this has been a longstanding controversy as to the specific role of congress. what the 12th amendment says the president of the senate shall in the presence of the senate and house of representatives open the certificate and the votes shall then be counted. that's the exact language that describes their function. and the ambiguity in that language has led to a long series of problems and the most obvious being the one that occurred after the 1876 presidential election between hayes and tilden. that was a momentous controversy over the validity of electoral votes. it led to the passage of a little-known act which tried to create a system to deal with controversy. that act has come up a few times in history. every time it does, it creates its own controversy. >> sandra: is this a fair challenge from your view, jonathan? >> well, it is a

jonathan turley is noting the concern of the impeachment will not only create president for an expedited pathway of snap impeachment but allow future congresses to impeach president for actions of their supporters. so where does this leave us? and what does it do to the constitutional balance? joining me now lee zeldin who is part of the defense team last year and former congressman bulbar served as an impeachment manager during the clinton impeachment trial. congressman is eldon, let's start with you. what is the biggest concern here? obviously liz cheney and adam kissinger are more traditional establishment republicans, but they maintain that it's not there ideological differences with the president, but purely on principle that they feel they must do this a week out of his leaving office anyway. >> i will be voting no on the impeachment and when you read the impeachment article and as we are listening to the clips that you were playing. the article specifically referencing the president's january 6th speech. as you pointed out a day earlier january 5th, the fbi issues a warning that o

jonathan turley alan dershowitz, constitutionall lawyers who take that seriously and all of them say that there is no basis to try a private citizen and that's what they would be doing from the moment donald trump leaves office. >> laura: this is the whole point of my angle, they are trump agenda and liz cheney does as well, she doesn't agree with most of the trump agenda, immigration, trade, foreign policy, but this is all they have. if they had the answers california and new york and illinois would be shining examples of prosperity, would they not? great on the vaccine rollout and great in handling covid, each state and it's own way is a disaster. i close it out quickly. >> laura: you have to understand what is happening right now isn't happening because the regime feels powerful, their octogenarians what not telling it to the end trying to hold onto power as they see a ocs rise in the way to prevent that from happening is to be the most anti-trump happening who could possibly exist. once he's gone, they're going to miss him because he protected them from aggressive backlash they w

according to constitutional scholar democrat jonathan turley, no fan off the presiden, they didn't like the president's speech on the sixth, he calls it a snap impeachment that would damage our constitution. harvard law professor alan dershowitz said to impeach the president for exercisingg his first amendment rights would be dangerous to the constitution. he will join us. house leader kevin mccarthy, by the way, told us in spite of this "new york times" piece that came out, said no he does not support the impeachment charade, does not want the president to resign, and he emphasized that he had been advising members repeatedly throughout the lastt few days that impeachment, yes, is a horrible idea. by the way, we did speak to senator mitch mcconnell's office tonight and we looked at what they said. the headline is "mitch mcconnell said he's pleased about impeachment. i think they supportively had change the headline because they said, no, there is no conclusions that have been made and there is a lot of salacious nonsense in this, meaning "the new york times" piece. that be maggie haber

jonathan turley joins us, the constitutional law professor. d from last week's developments to now sweeping new federal action not only to go after the perpetrators of last week's events but rounding all corners to make sure it doesn't happen again. it's a surreal environment, isn't it? >> it is. one of the most redeeming figures in the last week has been vice president pence. the most presidential moment of that awful day is the moment of the vice president when he defied the president and said that he would stand with his constitutional role. he had no authority to send back these votes. but it was a profile of courage to stand and say no, we're going to certify these votes as most of us said that they really had to. that was combined with another wonderful speak by mitch mcconnell telling his fellow senators to recognize the votes. so we had the moments that were shattered >> the president will not be going to the inauguration. the vice president will be. that sense of continuity will be there in a way, right? >> it will be. as horrible as t

sara: here is the fact check from the law professor jonathan turley, they opposes the election challengeut says this is not a bloodless coup. he is making the same challenge under the same federal law previously used by democrats and the rhetoric is now entirely from reality heard the establishments is entirely untethered from reality. here are the facts. it is not disputed but there is widespread distrust of the election. four out of five republicans nearly 40% of all americans, 4 40%, millions of independence even over 4 million democrats -- are all these people dumb peasants brainwashed by trumps lies and fox news? the elite so insultingly claim this. come on, they see what is happened to our voting system and the election was a two month and yet we still have today congressional races without a result and they have not finished counting. what kind of banana republic dysfunction is that? about harvesting. it is supposed to be one person, one vote. not one union activist 156 votes and what kind of banana republic corruption is that? no voting system that has legalized ellet harvesting

jonathan turley also made the point that this is like passing the buck.untable. that is what happened with the 9/11 commission. >> he talked about that. the problem was the way it was structured. it was structured in a way for everybody to cover their backside. you have to be serious about it and doan it the right way. i want to go back to something that you said. yes, there was frustration among a lot of people about the election. part of the reason for that frustration are the false is told by president trump. that is just a fact. the people -- that is all i have to add. elizabeth: we hear you. thanks for joining us. we have a hard rap. thank you for joining us. join us again tomorrow night. ♪ good evening, everybody. the radical left in this country is soon to have full power and control of the united states government. with control of the house and senate now assured for the democrats, congress moved in the dead of night to certified the electoral college victory of joe biden, which, of course, makes him the president-elect. in the process, congress d

. >> jonathan turley says the bird watchers, the new monitoring thing twitter has on our an ominous additionmponent of an expanding system of internet censorship. as they watch their neighbors and twitter watches them, free speech will further decline on the internet. basically we are asking fellow americans to police each other, not just the company going to police that they deputized everybody else to start taking on things they don't like. >> it is to mentally device and goes against the basic principle in this country that irrespective of what your belief or my belief is we respect each other not just when we agree but when we disagree and we have perverted that. it is become an alternative to say we disagree with you, now how quickly we can cancel one another in silence one another. it is fundamentally un-american. what george orwell might have imagined four decades ago we are seeing in action, we are not seeing it in action with the government, we are singing to the birth of the new big government, big business do holy, woke industrial complex is what i call it and that is the big dang