Committed to the First Amendment and OUR Freedom of Speech since 2008
Media Outlets Run With ‘Bombshell’ Jonathan Turley Comment — But They Leave Out One Thing
Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Virginia Kruta.
Multiple media outlets ran with one comment from George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley - treating it like a "bombshell" revelation and using it to suggest that the Republican-led impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden was unfounded - but they left out one important part of his assessment.
Turley, who has served as an expert witness in prior impeachments, did so again as House Republicans led by Rep. James Comer (R-KY) opened their impeachment inquiry on Thursday - and media outlets ran with one line from his prepared statement: "I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment."
A congressional reporter went with the same excerpt in a post shared via X: "Jonathan Turley in his submitted testimony for today's Biden impeachment hearing: 'I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment.'"
"PBS Newshour" correspondent Lisa Desjardins went with the same line as well: "Evidence? Not enough, says GOP's first impeachment witness, Jonathan Turley. He opens the hearing by saying this an inquiry is an important right of Congress and influence peddling is corruption. But says also, clearly, that current evidence does *not* support impeachment."
And while Turley did say that he did not believe the threshold had been met for an article of impeachment - and said that he would vote no if presented with one based on the evidence presented thus far - that was far from all that Turley said (emphasis added to show the small part of Turley's statement that was highlighted by media outlets).
It is important to emphasize what this hearing is not. It is not a hearing on articles of impeachment. The House has launched an impeachment inquiry, and I am appearing to discuss the history and purpose of such inquiries. I have previously stated that, while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment. The purpose of my testimony today is to discuss how past inquiries pursued evidence of potentially impeachable conduct.
My testimony also reflects the fact that I do believe that, after months of investigation, the House has passed the threshold for an inquiry into whether President Joe Biden was directly involved or benefited from the corrupt practices of his son, Hunter, and others. Since my testimony focuses on the historical and legal aspects of this inquiry, I will leave much of the discussion of the evidence to my fellow witnesses and to the Committee members themselves. However, I believe that the record has developed to the point that the House needs to answer troubling questions surrounding the President. As discussed below, polls indicate that most of the country shares those concerns while expressing doubts over the Biden Administration investigating potential criminal conduct.
And while most of the outlets covering the impeachment hearing did include Turley's full remarks in the copy, their headlines left context to the imagination.
Turley went on to outline the key points that he said pointed directly to the need for further scrutiny in the form of an impeachment hearing.
"Turley said, in [the] same breath, 'I also believe the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry.' He cited 'three inescapable facts': i) Speaking 'falsely' about business dealings; ii) Biden was 'focus' of influence scheme; iii)'Biden may have benefited' from scheme," RealClearNews White House reporter Philip Wegmann said.
Go Back
Multiple media outlets ran with one comment from George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley - treating it like a "bombshell" revelation and using it to suggest that the Republican-led impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden was unfounded - but they left out one important part of his assessment.
Turley, who has served as an expert witness in prior impeachments, did so again as House Republicans led by Rep. James Comer (R-KY) opened their impeachment inquiry on Thursday - and media outlets ran with one line from his prepared statement: "I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment."
- ABC News: "Evidence so far does 'not support' articles of impeachment: Turley"
- Mediaite: "GOP Witness Jonathan Turley Tells Congress 'Current Evidence' Does Not Support Biden Impeachment"
- Forbes: "Biden Impeachment Inquiry: GOP Witness Turley Admits There's Not Enough Evidence To Impeach Biden-Yet"
- The Messenger: "GOP Impeachment Witness: No Evidence Yet to Oust President Joe Biden"
- The New Republic: "Republicans' Key 'Biden Corruption' Witness Torches Their Entire Claims"
- CNN: "GOP witnesses say there's not enough evidence yet to impeach Biden"
- NBC News: "House GOP's impeachment witnesses say there's no evidence yet Joe Biden committed a crime"
A congressional reporter went with the same excerpt in a post shared via X: "Jonathan Turley in his submitted testimony for today's Biden impeachment hearing: 'I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment.'"
"PBS Newshour" correspondent Lisa Desjardins went with the same line as well: "Evidence? Not enough, says GOP's first impeachment witness, Jonathan Turley. He opens the hearing by saying this an inquiry is an important right of Congress and influence peddling is corruption. But says also, clearly, that current evidence does *not* support impeachment."
And while Turley did say that he did not believe the threshold had been met for an article of impeachment - and said that he would vote no if presented with one based on the evidence presented thus far - that was far from all that Turley said (emphasis added to show the small part of Turley's statement that was highlighted by media outlets).
It is important to emphasize what this hearing is not. It is not a hearing on articles of impeachment. The House has launched an impeachment inquiry, and I am appearing to discuss the history and purpose of such inquiries. I have previously stated that, while I believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted, I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment. The purpose of my testimony today is to discuss how past inquiries pursued evidence of potentially impeachable conduct.
My testimony also reflects the fact that I do believe that, after months of investigation, the House has passed the threshold for an inquiry into whether President Joe Biden was directly involved or benefited from the corrupt practices of his son, Hunter, and others. Since my testimony focuses on the historical and legal aspects of this inquiry, I will leave much of the discussion of the evidence to my fellow witnesses and to the Committee members themselves. However, I believe that the record has developed to the point that the House needs to answer troubling questions surrounding the President. As discussed below, polls indicate that most of the country shares those concerns while expressing doubts over the Biden Administration investigating potential criminal conduct.
And while most of the outlets covering the impeachment hearing did include Turley's full remarks in the copy, their headlines left context to the imagination.
Turley went on to outline the key points that he said pointed directly to the need for further scrutiny in the form of an impeachment hearing.
"Turley said, in [the] same breath, 'I also believe the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry.' He cited 'three inescapable facts': i) Speaking 'falsely' about business dealings; ii) Biden was 'focus' of influence scheme; iii)'Biden may have benefited' from scheme," RealClearNews White House reporter Philip Wegmann said.
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
