Media Outlets Run With ‘Bombshell’ Jonathan Turley Comment — But They Leave Out One Thing | Eastern North Carolina Now

    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."

  • 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.

Considering what real news is available for all to witness, and in great specificity, should one pursue what is true outside of the channeled realm of the corrupt corporate /legacy media, and: Is Institutionalized Corruption real, and is it a hindrance to sustaining our Constitutional Republic now, and for future generations of American citizens?
  Not sure
295 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Considering that the 2024 Presidential Election has fully begun, and the Biden Administration has consequently fully weaponized the Biden DOJ /FBI to attack all political opponents under the penalty of felonious judgement for many of the same alleged crimes, or worse, committed by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden himself: Are you comfortable with this level of overt corruption within the Executive Branch?
  Yes; if Democratic Socialists are to complete the remaking of this "Democracy," the End will Always Justify the Means.
  No; in a Constitutional Republic, the Rule of Law is paramount, which means the law MUST be administered evenly
  Who cares; I am just so ambivalent to all this grown-up stuff.
292 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

After nearly 8 months of the United States House of Representatives' Oversight Committee hearings, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is pursuing an Impeachment Inquiry into the strong allegations of Bribery, Influence Peddling, Money laundering and possible Treason regarding the Biden Family Shell Corporations' business dealings with foreign nations that are adversarial to our survival: Is it prudent and wise for the Republican controlled U.S. House to investigate this Democratic Socialist President?
  No, Democratics should never be investigated because they are so superior to their Republican counterparts, and care so much more.
  Yes, in a Constitutional Republic, bound by the Rule of Law, no one is above the law, and that law must be applied evenly.
  Not sure ... Now, what got all this started?
220 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back

Back to Top