turley, simple question for you. in your testimony today, are you presenting any first-hand witness account of crimes committed by the president of the united states? >> no, i'm not. >> you are not. >> ms. o'connor, second republican witness here today, have you in your testimony presented any first-hand witness account of crime presented by the president of the united states? >> i have not. >> mr. dubinsky, have you presented any first-hand witness account of crimes presented by the president of the united states? >> i have not. >> president gerhardt, given you are minority witness, i assume the same, correct? >> correct. >> thank you, to clarify two individuals presented today who have first-hand account surrounding progeny of allegations being blocked from testifying by republican majority and i want to explain why this is important. members of congress, all of us in this hearing, are not under oath. we are presently covered by the speech and debate clause, correct, mr. gerhardt? >> correct. >> covers all statemen

turley, please. let's go with this. capacity of state and district courts to keep records an information sealed. that's one of the critiques we have about moving away from a fisa court because, oh, boy, there'll be leaks, as if there's been no leaks in the current scheme. so tell me your experience there and is it possible for state and federal courts to keep information sealed? mr. turley: i always hear this objection. it has no support at all. i deal with national security cases through regular article 3 courts all the time, throughout the years they have scif. they have training. they're cleared. there aren't these allegations of leaks. the issue with the secret court is that no one is objecting that you can have a secret court in the sense of a giant scif where secret proceedings can occur. you can have judges shreked and trained for that purpose. the question is whether the standard for u.s. citizens and u.s. persons should be different in that croom. -- in that courtroom. i don't semithat -- accept that to be the

turley. it's far time for joe biden to stop lying to the american people about his shade did foreign business deals. he intentionally misled the american people by using complex maneuvers to pocket millions of dollars from our adversary. he lied when he was vice president, he lied as a candidate to gain the office of president of the united states and now this committee has uncovered the truth. it is time to impeach this compromised commander-in-chief. mr. chairman, i yield. >> gentle lady yields back. >> point of order. i didn't interrupt the gentle lady from colorado. you cannot engage in personalities against the president of the united states. >> we established that mr. ranking member. thank you. >> you cannot say that joe biden lied. he didn't lie -- >> mr. ranking member ---ed. >> you can't say it >> this is -- this is -- >> thank you. >> i can provide you all the cases -- >> reclaiming order. chair recognizes mr. ivy -- >> unanimous consent motion. i would like to reintroduce once agai

turley, i'm going to ask you a question. if the brand and what you are selling is joe biden, the then vice president, and if joe biden or his family is receiving some kind of benefit by the sale of access or, you know, i'll leave it there, selling of access or even the illusion of access to joe biden, what does that lead you to conclude? >> well, if you look at actual cases i've cited in my testimony, benefits to family members can be viewed as a benefit of the principal. so not much debate about that. the issue of the inquiry is whether -- there has been -- stop and say there has been progress in the last few weeks that many people after the archer testimony said yeah, i get it, it's influence peddling. someone said it's the illusion of access. >> the new defense, is that -- >> i think calling it by its correct name is important and it is a form of corruption. the benefits to the family members can be attributed to the principal even under the higher standard of criminal cases. what remains is the question is did the presid

turley.is far time for joe biden to stop lying to the american people about his shady foreign business deals. he intentionally misled the american people by using complex maneuvers to pocket millions of dollars from our adversaries. he lied when he was vice-president, he lied as a candidate to gain the office of president of the united states. now, this committee has uncovered the truth and it is time to impeach this compromised commander-in-chief. mr. chairman, i yield. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> point of order if i could, i didn't want to interinterrupt the good gentle lady from colorado, you cannot engage in personalities against the president of the united states. >> we've established that, mr. ranking member. >> you cannot say that joe biden lied. >> mr. ranking member we've established the hearing. >> you can't say it, mr. chairman, and parliamentarian. >> provide you all that-- >> reclaiming order. chair now recognize mr. ivy. >> unanimous consent. >> i would like to reintroduc

turley and mr. gerhardt testified in the judiciary committee the inquiry was in the intelligence committee. and in the intelligence committee, there were 17 first-hand witnesses with direct knowledge of the allegations, and the public hearings had 12 witnesses all with first-hand. here we are in our first hearing. no one has any actual knowledge or evidence. there's nothing new here. so, why don't we have some of the fact witnesses here. you've brought them in. they've come in already. what about devon archer? mr. donaldson, the chairman, now want to disavow stir archer's testimony that mr. biggs entirely relies upon. they don't want him to come sit here. why? may be because he testified that joe biden never discussed business with hunter or other business associates. he got nothing from their businesses. and he never took any official acts related to the businesses. or maybe the american people might hear that this $3.5 million actually had nothing to do with hunter biden which is what devon archer

professor turley, your response?, you know, i suppose i'm supposed to now engage in trash talking because that's how this goes, right? this is the license of the age of rage. and rage is addictive and professor transcribe shows th tt addiction. there was a time when law professor could say disagree and really argue the merits. tribe is a signature for attacking people. i got off light. he uses vulgarity against, you know, conservatives that don't share his opinions. and frankly, i just think that that is a tragedy for our profession. but, on the merits here, what he is suggesting is not just wrong, it's dangerous russlly wrong. as i stay in a column in response to that attack tribe has often been wrong on these cases. courts rejected him over and over again. the california supreme court rejected one of the bills that he said was constitutional, unanimously. that was a california supreme court. now, does that mean that his views aren't worthy? no. of course they are worthy of consideration. but we don't have to do ad

we'll have jonathan turley. back to the scandal story.'ll be right back here. ♪ ♪ ♪ “dirty deeds” by ac/dc ♪ (♪) ♪ dirty deeds (done dirt cheap) ♪ ♪ dirty deeds (done dirt cheap) ♪ ♪ is it possible to fall in love with your home... ...before you even step inside? ♪ discover the magnolia home james hardie collection. available now in siding colors, styles and textures. curated by joanna gaines. ♪ explore endless design possibilities. to find your personal style. endless hardie® siding colors. textures and styles. it's possible. with james hardie™. (psst! psst!) ahhh! with flonase, allergies don't have to be scary. spray flonase sensimist daily for non-drowsy long lasting relief in a scent free, gentle mist. flonase all good. also, try our allergy headache and nighttime pills. do you shop for vitamins at walmart? force factor products powerfully improve your health, but they're also delicious, easy to use, and affordable. that's why force factor is now the number one best selling herbs and supplements brand at walmart. unleash your potentia

turley. it is far time for joe biden to stop lying to the american people about his shady foreign business deals. intentionally misled the american people by using complex maneuvers to pocket millions of dollars from our adversaries. he lied when he was vice president. he lied as a candidate to gain the office of president of the united states. of this committee has uncovered the truth and it is time to impeach this compromised commander in chief. is determined, yield. >> point of order. if i could. i didn't want to interrupt the gentle lady from colorado, but you cannot engage in personalities that >> we establish that. >> you cannot say that joe biden lied. >> we have established -- >> you can't say it. i can provide you -- >> reclaiming order. the chair recognizes -- >> consent motion. >> i would like to reproduce once again the devon archer transcript and especially .2 when he says -- >> mr. goldman, we have reintroduced the fifth time. without objection we have reentered the transcript f

turley.professor turley, in 2006 you wrote an op-ed in the guardian entitled, quote, stop persecuting polygamists. you like en them to, quote, persecuted minorities and said polygamy is a practice with deep and good faith religious meaning. isn't that what you said? >> i represented the sister wives family in challenging a polygamy prosecution. >> you have been cree siding for legalizing polygamy for years. an op-ed in the usa today you said a utah polygamist named tom green convicted of pedophilia for raping his 13-year-old stepdaughter should not have been charged with polygamy. now, mr. chairman. >> can i respond? it is not entirely accurate. i criticized him. what i was dealing with was the constitutionality of what is called morals legislation. i am pretty libertarian, i admit. i -- >> the answer is yes. mr. chairman, mr. chairman, we're counting down the hours until the government shutdown and we have a hearing where we have one witness who defended a polygamist convicted of pedophilia

republicans, one from the democratic minority side, but one of their go-to legal analysts, jonathan turley, from the republican side, had this to say about the inquiry writ large. watch. >> 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. >> so, it is important what turley is saying here. the idea that he supports the inquiry, the exercise of fact finding here, but that the evidence that he sees so far does not support anything to the extent of an actual impeachment. and, again, this is the republican or one of the republican witnesses that have been called here. i think it is a reminder again, for us, that this is only an inquiry, this is not a full impeachment and as much as this is a presentation for the american public, as people like chairman comer have said, this is also an attempt to convince reluctant republicans who are not yet there on fully voting for a full impeachment, instead this is m

you know, it's not professor turley's fault. he's a constitutional law professor. i don't know if they looked across the country for other constitutional law professor. i don't know if anybody else would say it. but maybe john eastman. he may be detained these days. the fact is that this hearing has been dominated by the word "if" as many people have said. it's been filled with hypotheticals. i'm a law professor. i'm not averse to them. you don't impeach a president based on hypotheticals and obsolete conspiracy theories. finally, mr. chair, i want to say we talked a lot about ukraine today. kind of elusively and directly. we've talked about the beleaguers burisma theory. we talked about rudy guliani and lev parnov and the ukraine shakedown. while we were debating all of this and mentioning ukraine, there was a very important debate going on in the house floor. because the republican majority in the house rules committee has advanced an amendment to delete $300 million from the defense appropriation act, which will go to provide military secure assistance to the pe

turley: could i add one thing to that? there was a case in the second circuit, i agree with everything that's been said. one of the barriers that we see in federal court is people have been denied standing in order to challenge these issues. mr. nadler: the number of searches among u.s. persons went from 3.4 million in 2021 to less than 120,000 in 2022. can you explain what remedial measures the d.o.j. put in place to reduce the number or do you consider the changes sufficient to protect americans from unwanted surveillance? ms. goitein: the f.b.i. impose nud training requirement, changed its data systems in various ways and these changes resulted in the searches, as you say, going from 3.4 million to 200,000 searches. now i would say that one warrantless search of americans' communications is too many. 200,000 warrantless search, that's 500 warrantless searches for our communication every day, that's a jaw-dropping number. the fact that the f.b.i. seems proud of that number tellus how little regard they have for americans

turley.> thank you foror the materials you provided the committee. your legal analysis is first of in an incredible and its historic foundations but also its legal descriptions of the aspect of how do you conduct the impeachment investigation and what are the standards for the impeachment investigation. and taking some of the public facts that you are aware of and comparing them to the congressional authority and oversight responsibilities. i think it really does help the overall discussion, and i think there is validity to the need for the committee to move forward on the investigation as you look to historically what'si happened before. you mentioned in your opening statement about your description that i think is important to focus on in trying to guide our investigation. you said it's not criminal for a president or vice president to lie. you also said it's not criminal that hunter biden received someone paying the child of a viceig president for doing nothg isn't necessarily criminal, bu

i asked professor turley a question. in your view, could the promise of foreign access to any official or government official weather it is the vice president or anybody else, that only materially benefited a family member, could that be influence peddling? >> yes. as i point out in the testimony, courts have found that various benefits to family members can be attributed to the benefit of a principal which included everything from throwing a golf contest in favor of a son of a politician to paying for gifts and in fact i was lead counsel in the last impeachment trial for a judge and that was the trial in the u.s. senate and my client was accused, among other things, of benefits going to his family. there certainly is precedent, not only in criminal cases but it impeachment cases for making that. >> i will be more specific. if vice president biden used his office to influence foreign policy for the financial benefit of his son, even though vice president biden may never have received a dime, then it resulted in millions

turley and mr. gerhardt testified in 2019 in the official impeachment process in the judiciary committee, the inquiry was in the intelligence committee. and in the intelligence committee, there were 17 firsthand witnesses with direct knowledge of the allegations and the public hearings had 12 witnesses all with firsthand. here we are in our first hearing, no one has any actual knowledge or evidence there is nothing new here. so why don't we have some of the fact witnesses here? you've brought them in, you've -- they have come in already. what about devon archer? now, mr. donalds and the chairman want to disavow mr. archer's testimony that mr. biggs entirely relies upon but they don't want him to come sit here. why? well, maybe because he testified that joe biden never discussed business with hunter or other business associates, got nothing from their businesses and never took any official acts related to the businesses. or maybe the american people might hear that this $3.5 million from the woman ac

my take is a little bit different than professor turley's.elieve that the district attorney's office was much more of a player, so to speak, in terms of this final report released by the investigative grand jury. it is not a whole lot different than a traditional grand jury. the prosecutor controls everything. the prosecutor is their legal advisor and answers legal questions and the prosecutor picks and chooses what witnesss to suggest they bring in. i agree with jonathan that the investigative grand jury appeared to be out of control. they wanted to indict current and former senators, lindsey graham, david perdue, kelly leffler and others including michael flynn. so i suspect that the district attorney is more responsible for this final product than the grand jury says that she is. nevertheless, dana's question earlier this is a big news story in atlanta but as jonathan said there isn't a protest. it's a very big local media story and the national scene as well but needless to say, i'm not surprised with what's in this grand jury report. it

because professor jonathan turley always exposes golden for who he truly is. a complete idiot. >> mr. turley, he said 19 that impeachment requires a clear criminal act, is that right? >> no. in the trump impeachment i said repeatedly can impeach someone for noncriminal conduct. what i said then, i am saying that which is i strongly encourage you to look. >> that testimony is there. you can't. i have ten seconds left. you have said that lying is a president is not impeachable. you have said that there is an influence peddling campaign but you willing knowledge, will you not, that in order to have a criminal act of public corruption or bribery, there must be under mcdonnell an official act in connection to some sort of personal benefit. isn't that right? >> the gentleman's time has expired. please answer the question. figure i can point you to my testimony. >> just answer the question! >> it's a little more complex. >> no it's not! official act for personal benefit. >> the gentlest and has expired. >> sthe congressman is known asn gold gold men around town becau

i asked professor turley a question. in your view, could the promise of foreign access to any official or government official weather it is the vice president or anybody else, that only materially benefited a family member, could that be influence peddling? >> yes. as i point out in the testimony, courts have found that various benefits to family members can be attributed to the benefit of a principal which included everything from throwing a golf contest in favor of a son of a politician to paying for gifts and in fact i was lead counsel in the last impeachment trial for a judge and that was the trial in the u.s. senate and my client was accused, among other things, of benefits going to his family. there certainly is precedent, not only in criminal cases but it impeachment cases for making that. >> i will be more specific. if vice president biden used his office to influence foreign policy for the financial benefit of his son, even though vice president biden may never have received a dime, then it resulted in millions

jonathan turley reacts, next.tay with us. ♪ >> kayleigh: there has been a lot of talk lately about joe biden's emails, so let's go through what's known. pseudonyms, it's not uncommon for officials in government to have them but joe had at least three email addresses under fake names. here they are. robin ware was one of them. then he had jrbware. and then there was robert l. peters, all pseudonyms for joe biden. and the national archives and records administration reportedly has nearly 5,400 emails. that's a lot. and other documents related to those pseudonyms. we also know joe biden used those pseudonyms to email with hunter some of those could be simple check-ins between father and son. but we know some of them were not. like in 2014 when there was apparently an open position to work at the white house. so who better to consult about that than hunter biden who didn't work in the white house? but hunter, he appears to ask his dad for a favor. he wrote this, quote: before you fill position, please talk to me, j. m

thanks, peter. >> ainsley: interesting that jonathan turley has that remark.through so much of the evidence. he doesn't, that's his opinion. >> brian: it's 100 percent correct. that's why it's inquiry and investigation. could have kept it quiet and said look at what we have got. they gave us live inquiry along the way. now we have 20 bank accounts. now we have proof that he had 20 conversations with devon archer. now we have proof that he was actually at a dinner with some of the people that invested with hunter biden. so, they have kind of reviewed it, outlined it, because a lot of people don't follow it like we do. so they outlined it in order. and what was fascinating to see and a bit befuddling democrats wouldn't say i don't think that's true. they would say donald trump did worse. kushner did worse. what they are doing is that is a total -- that's the answer i expect from turley. because they don't know. this is not impeachment. this is an inquiry. frustration of all the documents and intelligence even from the national archives the librarians who are sup

i now recognize professor turley to begin his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman comer. ranking member raskin, members of the committee. it is an honor to appear before you today. to talk about what is undoubtedly the most weighty constitutional decision that you have under article one other than the declaration of war. and that is the potential impeachment of a president of the united states. it was roughly 25 years ago that i appeared in the impeachment proceedings with other experts in the impeachment of president william clinton. it was four years ago i appeared in the impeachment proceedings for president donald trump. and then it was just three years ago that another impeachment occurred without any hearings at all. the shortening intervals between impeachments should be a cause of concern and circum spec shun for all the members on both sides. i want to emphasize what it is that we're here today for. this is a question of an impeachment inquiry, not a vote on articles of impeachment. in fact, i do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of imp

the professor turley supported the biden investigation in conduct and yes had means impeachment inquiry. if theed investigators floated possible sex trafficking charges against hunter. 9 sprit occasions. fox news john thantur sehere to explain ump need rest and reluxuriation your first interview since capitol hill yesterday. first. the guy goldmachine the guy that said. we when joe would call in the same joe said he never poke to anybody about the foreign business dealing when is he would call in to hunter when with his foreign business partners or meet with people from rush why at cafe milano they were only tuck about this weather. this guy said. all right. put this aside. let's get to the heart of this. this is impeachment inquiry. i'm further long than you in my conclusion i think enough evidence exists for a full on appeal of joe biden. bribery. crime, misdemeanor. i believe the evidence before i jury result in instant indictment. that aside you go through evidence in great specificity and detail why this is necessary. why is it necessary? no question well is support for impeachment

one of their own witnesses, jonathan turley, wasn't having it. >> this is a question of an impeachmentuiry. it is not a vote on articles of impeachment. 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. >> i want to bring in nbc's ali vitali outside the hearing room, nbc's ken dilanian is in d.c., barbara mcquade is a former u.s. attorney and university of michigan law professor and msnbc legal analyst and matthew dowd is a former chief strategist for the bush cheney re-election campaign as well as senior msnbc political analyst. so ken, bring us up to speed. what stuck out to you here? >> chris, i think that turley sound really captured the tenor of all three of the republican witnesses. they came to the hearing to say, look, there's a lot of troubling behavior here, a lot of smoke. hunter biden was paid millions of dollars including by foreign business entities. there'

jonathan turley, thank you, kelly. >>i mean it, jonathan, all of that. i mean that a lot.but thisthis war this war room,h is conventional, you know, imump had woat, yon had a team , you know, put out pr and you respond to an impeachment thormal.y. w so that's not abnormal. but what is interesting to me here is thmodee biden war room h to model themselves after the clintoeyn 1998 impeachment model. and they say biden officials believ e they are even better positioned to win the battle of public opinion than clinton. what do you think? well, you know, the proble pm that they're establishing this war room before a war, they could easily avoid any impeachment inquiry by simplbyyr asking the the national archives to release this presn, the president to release information from his own financial accountsal.. >> and that would really forestall the need to have an inquiry. ve it's only because they have been stonewalling that congresrn has very little choice, in my view. but to move forward, i consider what congress has right now. i mean, even the is now accepting that there has b

impeachment hearing inquiry thy jonathan turley says it felt like he himself was on trialn tt he joins us next for an exclusive interview. and by the way, the democrats were beyond obnoxious, rude, interruptive. >> it was pretty bad. we'll show you the tape next. >> our ears connect us to the that matter. give them the nutrients they need with new lipo balance support, it's formulated with ingredients clinically shown to reduce vertigo like symptoms such as dizziness, spinning and swaying. never miss a moment with lipo flavonoid, grass fed beef and every bite. jinx real dog food made by real dog people. >> do you have trouble hearing conversations? are you constantly asking loved ones to repeat themselves? do you miss out on discussions or talking with friends? then you would benefit from m.d. hearing aids. don't waste thousands of dollars on expensive hearing aids or settle with the frustration of cheap amplifiers. right now you can get two revolutionary m.d. neo hearing aids regularly $999 for only $299 a pair. i feel that m.d. hearing is a super by because for the price point anyone

>> look, i think professor turley is right.teresting he is their witness, that he is someone who has consistently been a republican witness. who advocated against the impeachment of donald trump after the january 6 insurrection, acknowledged there's insufficient evidence to impeach president biden right now. which means that there's insufficient evidence to initiate this inquiry. you need to have some reason to turn an investigation into an impeachment. there has to be some new evidence, something that actually links the president of the united states to wrongdoing. we are not in an impeachment hearing of hunter biden. that's being dealt with by the department of justice. he has had a five-year exhaustive investigation. that's where it should stay. an impeachment investigation relates to the president. for the last eight or nine months the republicans have been doing an investigation. they have gotten 100% of the information they wanted from the administration and elsewhere. they don't have evidence showing joe biden's involvem

i think what professor turley was trying to articulate is lots— turley was trying to articulate is let'scussion, let's see if there is— let's have the discussion, let's see if there is evidence.— if there is evidence. isn't that ttuttin if there is evidence. isn't that putting the — if there is evidence. isn't that putting the cart _ if there is evidence. isn't that putting the cart before - if there is evidence. isn't that putting the cart before the i if there is evidence. isn't that - putting the cart before the horse? impeachment was a very rare thing it was usually brought before the house for a vote, they would vote on whether to open an inquiry, which of course the republicans haven't done. they would vote to open an inquiry if there was evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors was it was usually brought before the house for a vote, they would vote on whether to open an inquiry, which of course the republicans haven't done. they would vote to open an inquiry if there was evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. quite neve did nancy pelosi. ., , misdemeanors. quite neve did nancy

turley doesn't know what he's talking about.t that there was no charge of incitement, no conviction, that's not the point. this provision was written specifically as an all ternativ saying whether you're convicted or not. they didn't expect people to be convicted under president johnson. whether you're convicted or not, that's a separate matter but if you engage in an attempt to overturn the government, you shouldn't be entrusted with power. how many have to die before we enforce this? there were several who died at the capitol during the insurrection. that's all nonsense. it is conservatives like the judge and member of the federal society who agree with me. i'm afraid jonathan turley is basically a hack. he doesn't really know what he's talk talking about. >> he makes a legal issue. one other thing i want to give you a chance to respond to comes from one of the secretaries of state who would theoretically be charged with removing trump's name from the ballot. this is brad raffensperger, who stood up to trump when trump wanted

a press conference in just about an hour and we have jonathan turley, constitutional law professor.ur take after six years ago he beat similar charges in a hung jury but now this is happening again. the wife is charged as well. >> this is an extraordinary development for washington. i just arrived by train and the -- this is going to rock the city. menendez is obviously a fixture in this city. he has been accused of corruption before. ironically, he was in my jury during the last judicial impeachment trial of a judge accused of the same type of corrupt practices. and yet even though he had been previously alleged to have committed these acts he had no problem serving on that jury. this has really come back with a vengeance for the senator. he was able to dodge that bullet six years ago. this thing is really a monster of an indictment. they are charging classic acts of bribery and the denial of honest services as a senator. it will create a serious problem for the democrats. it is a razor-thin senate. he will have to continue in his position. they can't afford to lose his vote. so in

we saw the investigation from jonathan turley. he says as much. so far, there is nothing here, but he's making the case that republicans want him to make, that the impeachment inquiry is necessary to see if there is something more. you know, to tim's point, gloria, it's sort of resetting the threshold for where you go with these things. i just wonder what the long-term effect is. >> well, you lower the bar. the impeachment becomes just another thing you can do to aggravate a sitting president. >> these are serious things, impeachments. people should not take them lightly. politicians should not take them lightly. they could not occur just when people are angry at a president. i think what we are seeing is the lowering of that bar, and a committee bound to do it, and a house speaker that decided he couldn't stop them for other reasons, other political reasons. so, you know, i think it's just a moment in american political his tore when something that used to be very serious is now kind of just becoming run of the mill. you heard donald trump say, w

remember this investigation -- >> jonathan turley said that? turley said that? turley said that. >> hasn't he been in donald trump's corner? >> he's been a defender. as mika points out, rightly, this hearing was going on while tomorrow now at midnight, the government likely is going to shut down, and that government workers are already getting emails. they're getting their notices that they're going to be furloughed, that they're not going to be paid. so take that snapshot of those guys and women in that room for 6 1/2 hours on a road to nowhere while the government is about to shut down and people are going to be out of jobs. >> and word out that comer is now actually designating, like, some of these impeachment people as essential workers who will work through a government shutdown. >> come on. >> i'll let the show start soon. i promise, i am, but, you know, willie, "the post" as this always says, this is the paper of record for "morning joe," and there's something on here that i just -- i'm having a little problem with. don't stop believing? come on, man. how

we have jonathan turley, mark levin, and nicole parker all standing by for us this afternoon. first a recap of what we learned today in this hearing. himak, david. >> hi, martha, long day, year and begin at 10:00 this morning, even though the attorney general was the chief witness, you think it would have been hunter biden or perhaps special counsel david weiss given the amount of times that their names were mentioned in this hearing. the hearing kicked up with chairman jordan setting the tone this way. watch. >> the fix is in. even with the face-saving payment last week of hunter biden, everyone knows the fix is in. 4 1/2 years. 4 1/2 years the department of justice has been investigating mr. biden, run by david weiss, an investigation that limited the number of witnesses agents could interview. >> garland appointed david weiss as special counsel after he asked to be appointed. weiss was in a appointee in delaware. >> i reaffirmed today i am not the president's lawyer. i will add, i am not congress' prosecutor. the justice department works for the american people. our job is

turley, you saidler in 2019 that impeachment requires a clear criminal act. is thact, is tt right. >> no. in fact, in therump trump impeachment, i said repeatedly, you can you can impeach someone for non-criminal conduct. what inoncrimi said i'm saying , which is i strongly encourage you to look at criminal law.. all right. well, that testimony is there. well, let's just knoyou ca tenws can't because i have 10 seconds left. you have said that lying l as a as a president is not impeachable. you have said that there's an influence peddling campaign, but you will acknowledge, will you notg knowle, that in or to have a criminal act of public corruption or briberiy ,there must be, under mcdonnell, an official act in connection to some sort of personal benefit. >> isn't that right? isn's experiment. question charlie, please answer the question. i can just point you to my testimony. re inti talk about. just answer the question because it's a little more common. no, it's noter t an official act for a personal benefit. gentleman's time's expired. now, the congressman

to jump off what jonathan turley was saying, to me, this case following. evidence for somebody like jack smith to charge donald trump with insurrectorion, democrats want to keep trump off the ballot because in their mind this feels insurrectoriony to them. what say you? >> it is good to be with you today. fortunately, that is not how the law is interpreted, not a matter of insurrectorion, what matters is intent and obviously the 14th amendment that you quoted was meant to cover the civil war over 100 years ago, a very dark moment in american history, jonathan turleyin points out thousands died in that conflict. the left want to disqualify donald trump because they think he is effective and they worry about him becoming president. i come down on this, so much of our constitution gives power to the people and people have to decide who the president should be in 2024, not some judge in some random courthouse in america or congress. >> todd: if trump were to be kicked off a ballot, could our system survive? this is weaponizing the law and flawed interpretation

jonathan turley will react to that next. >> laura: warning a alert. >> >> the 14th amendment is clearit doesn't require you be -- a. it's a disqualification from holding office again. and it fits donald trump to a t by the clear terms of the 14th amendment he should be gawflted from holding office. >> laura: told you they were going to pull out all the stops. that means by any means necessary you have got to dump trump even if it means obliterating the actual words and meaning of the actual constitution. as i said in the angle the democrats know that their own base, it doesn't want biden. they want another alternative to run. they see biden's slagging poll numbers the party elites do not trust their own voters. >> under the 14th amendment he is not even allowed to run even though he hasn't been convicted yet. >> instead of concentrating so much on the indictments, i mean i'm very excited about them myself, i definitely think 14th amendment all the way just prevent him from running. >> okay. >> laura: she is a renowned constitutional scholar. joining me now jonathan turley professor of

in our spotlight on podcast segment, stu turley and ray trevino talk about energy policy, and episodes of their audio show " three podcasters walk into a bar." join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern saturday morning on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv's podcasts about books with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists and industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> up next, federal reserve chair jerome powell talks about the core target inflation range and how the fed is prepared to increased interest rates if needed to tackle high inflation. chair powell also spoke about the economic outlook during a speech of the federal reserve bank of kansas city's economic symposium in jackson hole, wyoming. to chairman powell. chairman powell: my remarks this year will be a bit longer but the message is the same. it is the fed stopped to bring inflation down to our 2% goal and we will do so. we have

turley's thoughts on the matter. what do you think? >> a great many things. first, one might note that republicans, who are hardly left-leaning, in new hampshire, are bringing section 3 lawsuits. going back, concerned with section 3 is across the political spectrum. and section 3 is in the constitution. it's no more wacky than the first or second amendment. and in fact if you look at the history of section 3, originally it simply referred to people who participated in the late rebellion, limited to the civil war. but they changed it and the reason was, as they said, that we are worried about future insurrection. so one of those insurrections that people apply this to was by the clan. the clan went down and murdered people. that was an insurrection. only a few people, but it's still an insurrection. so again, the question is the definition of insurrection, as i've indicated, an attempt to resist the implementation of federal law by force or violence. that's the common-law definition. was president trump involved? if he was he should be disqualified. if not, he

jonathan turley, coming up. the left's dance party to panic.t until we come back, breaking down the last defense. coming up next live body and shall, join us, tickets are free had indeed.com and we will see you again tomorrow night. [cheers and applause] acellus courses for parents independently homeschooling their children. our complete k through 12 homeschool program includes courses in math, science, social studies, reading and language arts. it also includes electives such as music, 3d printing and programing. power homeschool has really transformed our child's experience and allows her to work at her own pace. visit our website at power homeschool dot org to learn more and start your child's educational journey. here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch, it's fre. we make money

here with reaction fox news contributor georgetown university law professor jonathan turley, sir. [applause] >> let's get your reaction to today. i think this is league hanging fruit to me. i think that this was forced upon them. we already know that they planned not to charge him. then they got the sweetheart deal that got exposeed by the judge in delaware. this is plan c. what are your thoughts? >> it's conspicuous as you noted as chairman comer noted as to what was not charged. they were giving out fara charges against trump specials with great speed. they hit paul manafort with the charges based on the same facts. what the media is ignoring these uncharged crimes do have one common possible motive. when you don't declare yourself a foreign agent, when you don't declare income, when you create these questionable international transfers, all of them can be effectively succeed in hiding that trail. if you declare income you got to say where the income came. from if you declare yourself a forge agent you have to explain what you're doing for foreign governments. if you create this

assistant attorney general for taxes eileen o'connor and well known law professor at gwu jonathan turleyat you have them go -- the what a will you have them go through? are hay the ones that are going to review all the we've, or will they present new evidence? how's this going to work out? >> well, i think you'll see over the next 48 hours we're going to release some new evidence of wrongdoing by the biden family. but with respect to the three witnesses, what we want from them is to answer questions from our panel. so we have 26 republicans on the panel and, obviously, there are 19 democrat cans that'll continue to defend the indefensible by defending joe biden at all costs. but with respect to the 26 the republicans, we want to go over the evidence that we've accumulated thus far and ask each particular witness what their impression of this evidence is. we have forensic auditorses, forensic accountants that are going to be able to talk about the tax crimes. we have jonathan turley who does a very good job talking about the violation of the foreign agents' registration act. he talks abou

jonathan turley will react to that, next. ♪ we, we, we have had... enough.oliticians have failed. working for lobbyists, not us. we need your voice to pass the kids online safety act this fall. join us. join us. join us. join us. ♪ let's lead the way. (upbeat music) - [narrator] what if there was a hearing aid that could keep up with you? (notification dings) this is jabra enhance select. it's a smart hearing solution that makes hearing aids more convenient and less expensive. it connects with your phone so you can stream calls and music. with jabra enhance select's premium package, better hearing doesn't have to start in a doctor's office. it starts with a free online hearing test you could take almost anywhere, so you can get your hearing aids custom programed for you and delivered in days. from there, you can fine tune your settings with your remote audiology team seven days a week, so your hearing aids work when it matters most. (notification dings) in fact, more than 95% of enhance select premium customers report hearing better with their friends, famil

the media has been misstating what jonathan turn turley has bn saying. >> the gun powder is incumbent upon us and the preponderance of the evidence is that joe biden is his son were involved in fraud and money laundering i influence peddling and selling access. it's more likely than not. can we get torrential doubt to reach impeachment and only way to know is open an impeachment inquiry. elizabeth: house lawmakers joseph ziegler cited an e-mail between hunter biden and devon haarcher laying out the plan for burisma. it could make $5 million total and whistle blower doing how it matches with the fbi informant document and veteran career informant and 1023 that senator grassley revealed and the appointment talked about $5 million in bribes to hunter and joe biden for burisma's cofounder embr embroiled in a corruption probe. the whistle blowers were talking about it and trying to track it but they were blocked. >> liz, all the evidence that we uncover matches the stuff we already know. and it's shocking to me that the democrats can't see or they don't want to admit it, but that's why we

jonathan turley calls the white house letter marching orders. he writes what is most disturbing is that the white house shows no concern in making such an open pitch. the fact it comes from the white house counsel's office is particularly chilling. this is not the press office but the counsel for the president calling on media to form a unified front against the republicans and the impeachment inquiry. that's exactly the point. that's exactly what jumps out at you. you mean you have attorneys trying to shut down the media? cassie. >> no one is shutting down the media. they are giving context to this crazy situation. you have mccarthy, who first said he would go forward if he got the entire house to go along with it. he realizes that's not possible so he is saying. >> harris: as soon as you done we will go back to cassie. >> what i was getting at, the white house is not demanding but giving clarification to this crazy situation. this circus that the republicans are trying to do. >> harris: you get a letter from the attorney from the white house c

nice to see you, jonathan turley, thank you. >> sandra: keep the phone handy. meanwhile congresswoman ocasio-cortez is leading a tour of the roosevelt hotel with waves of asylum seekers while big blue cities coast to coast are dealing with their on influx of migrants. los angeles mayor karen bass she fears the day planes arrive in her city. >> they are trying to destabilize cities because it's chicago, washington, d.c., new york, the narrative these are democratic-run cities and we don't know how to govern and that everything is chaotic here. we live in a city that welcomes immigrants. and so i think we have been able to handle it. i am fearful that any day planes could start coming. >> sandra: stark shift from her touting l.a. as a sanctuary city back in june. she said l.a. will not be swayed or moved by petty politicians playing with human lives. >> bill: we'll see how much that holds up over time. what alexandria ocasio-cortez will find at the roosevelt hotel is a mess. on the sidewalk you see it. inside the hotel. we can't get in because you need permission